Karnataka High Court
M/S Mysore Minerals Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2022
Bench: Acting Chief Justice, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.P. NO.21308 OF 2010 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
M/S. MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED
JAMBUNATHAHALLI IRON ORE MINES
BELLARY DISTRICT
HEAD OFFICE AT NO.39
M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. D.N. NANJUNDA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. D.V. GIRISH, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT &
ECOLOGY, M S BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
HOSPET RANGE, HOSPET
BELLARY DISTRICT.
2
3. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY.
4. M/S. R B S S N
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SANAKALAPURAM IRON ORE MINES
P O BOX NO. 38, HOSPET.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R1-R3
MR. ARUN KUMAR, ADV., FOR R4)
---
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO PASSING OF ORDER
DT.24.10.07 BY THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,
REGISONAL DIVISION, BELLARY-R3. CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS OF CRL. A.NO.143/07 FROM THE HON'BLE
COURT OF FAST TRACK-III HOSPET. SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DT.29.3.10, PASSED IN CRL. A.NO.143/07 PASSED BY THE
JUDGE, FAST TRACK-III, HOSPET & CONSEQUENTLY SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS, REGIONAL DIVISION BELLARY, R3,
DT.24.10.07 & ETC.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia
seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated
29.03.2010 passed in Crl.A.No.143/2007, as well as
the order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Regional Division, Bellary. The
petitioner further seeks a direction to Deputy
Conservator of Forest, Regional Division, Bellary to
release the confiscated iron ore of 1,02,206 metric
tones to the petitioner.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ
petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a
Government Company. The petitioner was granted a
mining lease in respect of an area measuring 34.5
hectares of Jambunathanahalli Village, Hospet,
Bellary. The respondent No.4 holds a mining lease in
respect of an adjoining lease at his land bearing
Sy.No.185/2 in Sankalapuram Village.
3. The Director of Mines Safety, Hyderabad by
an order dated 29.04.2004 passed under Regulation
101(2) of Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961
allowing works upto the common boundaries of the
properties. In view of aforesaid order, the petitioner
and respondent No.4 entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with regard to working on the common
boundaries of the properties. The raising contract
executed between the petitioner and respondent No.4
expired. The disputes ensued between petitioner and
respondent No.4 which were referred for arbitration.
The award passed by the arbitrator is under challenge
before the City Civil Court, Bangalore.
4. It appears that petitioner had mined the
mineral and had stored the same. The aforesaid
mineral was seized on 18.06.2007. Thereafter, a
notice dated 23.07.2007 was issued under Section 71-
A(2) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 on the ground
that the seized minerals were smuggled from the
forest land. The petitioner submitted a reply on
02.08.2007, in which it was stated that seized mineral
was lawfully mined and requisite environment
clearance was obtained.
5. The Deputy Conservator of Forest passed
an order of confiscation dated 24.10.2007 in respect
of seized mineral. The petitioner filed an appeal
against the said order, which was dismissed by the
appellate court by an order 29.03.2010. In the
aforesaid factual background, this petition has been
filed.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submitted that respondent No.4 in statement of
objection had admitted that iron ore was mined under
the supervision of the petitioner and the same was
stored on the land of the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the mineral was lawfully extracted. It
is pointed out that during the pendency of the writ
petition, the seized mineral has already been sold and
the petitioner is entitled to receive the sale proceeds.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional
Government Advocate has supported the impugned
order. It has been pointed out that mining operations
were suspended for a period from 01.06.2007 to
30.04.2008 and therefore, the aforesaid mineral has
been illegally extracted.
8. We have considered the submissions made
on both sides and have perused the record.
Admittedly, on 18.06.2007 a raid was conducted in
the mining area of the petitioner and 1,02,206 metric
tonnes of iron ore was seized. The petitioner in the
proceeding before Deputy Conservator of Forest did
not produce any document with regard to ownership
of the seized mineral. Similarly, mo material was
produced to show that the iron ore was lawfully
excavated. The Executive Director of the petitioner in
the letter dated 02.08.2007 filed before the Deputy
Conservator of Forest, has not furnished any cogent
material with regard to ownership of iron ore nor any
documents. The Deputy Conservator of Forest has
therefore, directed confiscation of the seized iron ore.
The appellate court in its judgment dated 29.03.2010
inter alia has held that a show cause notice dated
27.07.2007 was issued to the petitioner. However, the
appellant has not responded to the aforesaid show
cause notice. The petitioner even before the appellate
court has neither adduced any oral or documentary
evidence in support of their claim in respect of
ownership of the seized mineral. The appellate court
has taken into account the fact that mining activity
were suspended for a period from 01.06.2007
onwards, in arriving at conclusion that the mineral
has been extracted illegally. There is no material on
record to indicate that seized iron ore has been
extracted lawfully. A concurrent finding of fact has
been recorded by the Deputy Conservator of Forest as
well as by the appellate court on the said issue. The
aforesaid finding has neither been demonstrated to be
perverse nor based on no evidence.
No case for interference with the aforesaid
concurrent finding of fact is made out in this
summary proceeding in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, we do not find any merit in this
petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
