REPORTABL E

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3187-3188 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 22023-22024 of 2010)

B.R. Surendranath Singh …Appellant

Versus

Deputy Director, Department of Mines &

Geology, Karnataka and ors. …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3189 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14120 of 2010)

B.R. Surendranath Singh …Appellant

Versus

Union of India and ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.Since the common questions of law arise in these

appeals, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

3.These appeals emanate from the order dated

25.06.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 27521 of 2005, order

dated 12.04.2010 passed in Review Petition No. 418 of 2009

in Writ Petition No. 27521 of 2005 and interim order dated

29.04.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 15079 of 2010 by

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnatka at Bangalore.

4.The appellant aggrieved by the said orders passed by

the High Court of Karnataka has preferred these appeals.

5.For the sake of convenience the facts of Civil Appeal

Nos. ______________________ of 2011 arising out of Special

Leave Petition (Civil) NoS. 22023-22024 of 2010 entitled

B.R. Surendranath Singh v. Deputy Director

Department of Mines & Geology & Ors. are recapitulated

as under.

6.Brief facts according to the appellant are as under:

A mining lease was granted during the year 1958 in

favour of B.K.R.N. Singh, the father of the appellant herein,

with respect of a land measuring 58 acres situated at

Honnebagi and Bellenahalli village, Chikkanayakanahalli

2

Taluk, Tumkur District, Karnataka. The lease was initially

for a period of 20 years and the said period expired in the

year 1978. Thereafter, the mining lease was renewed for a

further period of 10 years upto 19-10-1988, in the name of

Smt. Kamalabai, wife of B.K.R.N. Singh. After the death of

Smt. Kamalabai, the appellant is continuing as the lessee

and an application for renewal has also been made by the

appellant.

7.The appellant is continuing with the quarrying

operations and accordingly the appellant has been filing

monthly reports with the first respondent – Deputy Director,

Department of Mines and Geology, Railway Station Road,

Tumkur.

8.Adjacent to the property leased in favour of the

appellant, certain persons have illegally conducted mining

operations and extracted iron ore. According to the

appellant he immediately wrote a letter-cum-undertaking to

the respondents that this iron ore of approximately one lakh

ton can be taken away by the respondents and the

appellant herein has no claim whatsoever over it. The

3

letter/undertaking dated 20-12-2004 of the appellant is

setout as under:

“20-12-2004

From

B.R. Surendranath Singh,

194, 4

th

Main Road,

Chamarajpet,

Bangalore – 18.

To

The Director,

Dept of Mines and Geology,

Division Road,

Bangalore.

I would like to bring to your kind notice that

approximately about 1 lakh ton of iron ore fines has been

dumped in my ML area No.2187 and the same material you

can take possession and do whatever you deem for and

further I have no claim on the above stock.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

B.R. Surendranath Singh”

9.During the month of January, 2005, the respondents

found that about one lakh ton of iron ore has been illegally

quarried and this illegal material was kept in the appellant’s

land and the appellant was directed to protect the said one

4

lakh ton of iron ore. The appellant immediately

acknowledged the approximate stock of one lakh ton of iron

ore for which the appellant gave an undertaking to protect

the same. The relevant portion of the undertaking is

reproduced as under:

“AFFIDAVIT

I, B.R. Surendranath Singh son of late Kamalabai,

aged about 70 years, residing at No. 195, 4

th

Main Road,

Chamarajpet, Bangalore 560 019, do hereby solemnly affirm

and declare the following:

Whereas the Department of Mines and Geology is

having a stock of approximately one lakh ton of iron ore

lying at Survey No. 130 of Honnebagi Village,

Chikkanaikanahalli Taluk.

We undertake to protect, safeguard and keep safe the

said stocks.

BANGALORE

DATED 10/012005

B.R. SURENDRANATH S INGH”

10.It is the case of the appellant that after extracting the

iron ore the appellant is required to submit a monthly

report and the monthly report indicates the production and

dispatch and remaining balance iron ore on the mining

lease.

5

11.It is also the case of the appellant that he was in

possession of iron ore which have been legally extracted by

him from his leased area and also he is in possession of

another one lakh ton of iron ore which is seized by the State

Government.

12.According to the appellant, the Deputy Director - the

first respondent brought some people on 22.12.2005 who

were interested in purchasing the iron ore, for which the

first respondent herein actually showed the iron ore legally

quarried and stacked by the appellant instead of showing

the illegally mined iron ore lying within the borders of the

appellant’s leased land.

13.The appellant submitted a representation to the

respondent No. 1 stating that the error has been rectified

and appropriate action be taken in this regard. The

appellant made a complaint that instead of illegally mined

iron ore, the respondent no. 1 was contemplating to sell the

iron ore which was legally mined and accumulated by the

appellant.

6

14.The appellant wrote a letter to the Chief Minister of

Karnataka on 23.12.2005 and thereafter filed a writ petition

No. 27521 of 2005 before the High Court of Karnataka at

Bangalore with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamous

restraining the respondents from auctioning the iron ore

fines stacked in Survey No. 130, Honnebagi and Bellenhali

Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District and

direct the respondents to conduct an inspection, and

thereafter determine the iron ore fines, which have been

legally extracted by the appellant, and the iron ore fines,

which are illegally dumped in the area of the appellant.

15.The High Court by the order dated 27.12.2005 directed

respondent No. 1 not to confirm the auction till 30.12.2005.

In spite of the interim order granted by the High Court,

respondent No. 1 issued another notification dated

21.01.2006, inviting bids for auctioning the iron ore legally

quarried by the appellant. The appellant also filed a

contempt petition in the High Court that when the matter

was pending, the respondents had no authority to issue

subsequent notification for auctioning the iron ore.

7

16.A letter dated 25.02.2006 was issued by the

respondent – Deputy Director, Department of Mines and

Geology, Tumkur, stating that on a complaint of illegal

mining activity and on a visit to the site by the Joint

Director, Mysore, it was found that in an area adjacent to

the lease of appellant, one Basanth Poddar was doing illegal

mining in the area using sophisticated mining machineries

and the said Basanth Poddar transported the iron ore,

illegally removed it, by using permits of Mining Lease No.

2187 which belongs to the appellant. The letter further

states that after inspecting the stock of iron ore

unauthorisedly piled by the accused persons the same was

quantified at about one lakh metric ton. The letter further

states that from the preliminary enquiry it was learnt that

one M/s. Balaji Producing Company has been granted the

mining lease under Mining Lease No. 2208 covering Survey

No. 130 of Honnebagi Village and in Survey No. 12 of

Gollarahalli Village and he had given the raising contract for

extraction of iron ore to Selvaraj of Sun Minerals and the

said Selvaraj claims to have dug a pit at ‘Biscuit Pit’ and

8

removed the iron ore and stacked the ore in the area of

Mining Lease No. 2187, which is adjacent and owned by the

appellant herein. The first respondent thereafter submitted

the complaint for prosecution of M/s. Karnataka Mining

Company, M/s. Balaji Produce Company, Chennai and their

contractor Selvaraj of M/s. Sun Minerals and the appellant

herein, who are involved in committing the act of illegal

quarrying. The above complaint was registered as Crime

No. 52/2006 before the Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station.

17.The appellant filed an application for amendment in

the High Court praying for a writ of certiorari and to quash

the FIR dated 25.02.2006 registered as Crime NO. 52/2006.

18.The appellant submitted that the respondents filed an

application for appointment of a Court Commissioner to

identify the iron ore extracted from the area covered by the

lease of the appellant. The High Court on 12.10.2006

passed the following order:

“The respondents have filed a memo dated 15.4.2006 for

appointment of a Court Commissioner, which reads as

follows:-

9

The petitioner is a mining lease holder and out of large

extent of area in Survey No. 130 of Honnebagi Village an

area of 58 acres is leased in favour of the petitioner. Apart

from the petitioner, others also leased certain extent of land

in the same Survey Number. The remaining extent of land

in the same survey number continued to be the Government

holding, which is rich in mineral deposit. The petitioner

who is granted the lease is adjoins by the land retained by

the State Government.

It is submitted that unauthorized mining operation in the

Government land was detected by the department

authorities. Immediately, action has been taken to seize the

unauthorized mining iron ore which was deposited on the

leased area of the petitioner. After holding mahazar same

was handed over to the petitioner for safe custody. The

respondent has taken decision to auction the seized iron

ore, same was questioned by the petitioner claiming right

over the same.

It is humbly submitted that, there is a claim and counter

claim in regard to the iron ore stocked on the petitioner’s

leased area. This can be identified by appointing a

Commissioner. The Commissioner requires certain

knowledge to ascertain the area by examining the field

condition.

It is further submitted that, the iron ore deposited which is

illegally mined in the Government land is fine in nature, but

iron ore deposited in petitioner’s lease area is lumps and

fine in nature. The material stocked by the petitioner is

nothing but waste and low grade material.

Wherefore, it is requested to appoint any one the

following as a commissioner, in the interest of justice and

equity.

1.S. Ray Chaudri,

Regional Controller of Mines,

No.29, Industrial Suburb,II Stage, Tumkur Road,

Goraguntepalya,

10

Bangalore-560 072.

2.Dr. S.K. Bhushan,

Deputy Director General,

Geology Survey of India,

Goa and Karnataka Circle,

Vasudha Bhavan,

Kumaraswamy Layout,

Bangalore – 560 078.

2.As could be seen from the above, there is claim and

counterclaim with regard to certain iron ore stacked on the

petitioner’s leased area. To determine the controversy, Shri

Ashok haranahalli, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Shri B.N. Prasad, learned H.C.G.P. submit

that Dr. S.K. Bhushan, named in the memo may be

appointed as a Court Commissioner.

3.In view of the joint submission made by the learned

counsel appearing for the parties, I deem it appropriate to

appoint Dr. S.K. Bhushan as the Court Commissioner to

submit his report to this court relating to the aforesaid

controversy between parties, namely as to whether the iron

stacked on the petitioner’s leased area was extracted by the

petitioner from the land leased to him or was illegally

extracted from the abutting Government lands. In other

words, the Commissioner shall have to identify the illegally

extracted iron ore, if any, stacked on the petitioner’s leased

area after holding spot inspection by issuing notice to the

petitioner and R1. This shall be done within three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the

Commissioner. The parties shall serve a copy of this order

on the commissioner to enable him to do the commission

work.

4.The memo filed by the respondents & I.A. 4/2006 filed

by the petitioner for appointment of a Court Commissioner

stand disposed of in the above terms.

(H.G. Ramesh)

Judge”

11

19.The High Court appointed Dr. SK Bhushan, Deputy

Director General, Geological Survey of India, as the Court

Commissioner to inspect and submit a report relating to the

controversy between the parties namely, as to whether the

iron ore stacked in the leased area of the appellant was

extracted by the appellant from the land leased to him or

was illegally extracted from the abutting government lands.

20.On 10.01.2007 report was submitted by the Court

Commissioner after inspecting and verifying the iron ore

found in the area of the lease of the appellant. The

Commissioner, after analyzing the chemical qualities of the

iron ore found that the dump-in dispute stacked near the

crusher in two lots was extracted from the Kamalabai pit

(appellant) located in the area leased to the appellant i.e.

M.L. No. 2187. The Commissioner further found that no

illegally extracted iron ore from the ‘Biscuit Pit’ located in

the Government land is stacked on the leased area of the

appellant.

12

21.On 21.08.2007 the High Court of Karnataka passed

the following order:

“Shri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, learned Government

Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that

adequate number of samples are not extracted from the

Biscuit Pit. He, therefore, submits that the same Court

Commissioner be directed to go to the spot and collect the

samples from 3 points in the Biscuit Pit, which are to be

identified by the respondents. In this regard, he undertakes

to file the memo of instructions for the Court Commissioner.

2.Shri Ashok Haranahalli, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the earlier appointment of the Court

Commissioner was at the instance of the respondents only.

The concerned officials of the respondents, who were

present on the spot, did not object to the Court

Commissioner collecting the samples from the two points in

the Biscuits Pit. They did not even suggest that more

samples be collected from other points in Biscuit Pit.

Despite all these, Shri Ashok Haranahalli fairly submits

that he is agreeable to sending the same Court

Commissioner to the spot again for collecting the samples

from 3 points in Biscuit Pit to be identified by the concerned

officials of the respondents with the understanding that the

respondents would not raise objection to the second report

of the commissioner. He submits that although there is no

need for sending the Court Commissioner for the second

time to the spot, he is conceding to the respondent’s request

for the purpose of ensuring finality in the litigation.

3.The Court Commissioner, Dr. SK Bhushan, Deputy

Director General, Geological Survey of India, Goa and

Karnataka Circle, Vasudha Bhavan, Kumarasamy layout,

Bangalore-560078 is hereby directed to go to the spot

namely, Biscuit Pit situated in Surveyy. No. 130 of

Honnebagi and Ballenahalli Village, Chikkanayakanabhalli

Taluk, Tumkur district and collect the samples from 3

points, to be identified by the respondents. On getting the

samples tested in authorized laboratory, he shall file his

13

reports as to whether the dump in dispute (SCK-1, SCK-2

and SCK-3) is extracted from the Biscuit Pit.

4.The office is directed to communicate this order

alongwith a copy of the terms of reference filed on behalf of

the respondents and also his earlier report, dt. 10.01.2007

to the Court Commissioner forthwith. The office is also

directed to prepare the necessary warrant in this regard and

issue the same to the court commissioner. The Court

Commissioner is directed to go to the spot at 10.30 a.m. on

1.9.2007 for the purpose of collecting the samples. The

parties and their respective learned advocates are directed

to co-operate with the Court Commissioner in executing the

warrant. It is made clear that there is no need for the Court

Commissioner to notify the parties of the time and date of

inspection. However, if the date and time specified herein

does not suit the convenience of the Court Commissioner

for whatever reason, then he has to inform the parties of the

date and time of holding the spot inspection by him.

5.Further it is also made clear that any intimation sent

by the Court Commissioner to the learned Advocates,

S/Shri Ashok Haranahalli and Sathayanarayana Singh

shall be deemed to have been sent to the parties to the

petition. The office shall furnish the mail address of the

advocates for the petitioner and the respondents to the

Court Commissioner.

6.The Court Commissioner shall submit his report

within two weeks from the date of his holding the spot

inspection. Tentatively, the Court Commissioner’s fees is

fixed at Rs.15,000/-. As the Commissioner is being sent for

the second time at the instance of the respondents and as

the Commissioner’s fees were borne by the petitioner’s side

on the earlier occasion, I deem it fit and necessary to direct

both the petitioner and the respondents to bear the

Commissioner’s fee on 50:50 basis. Both the petitioner and

the respondent No. 1 shall deposit Rs.7500/- each with the

Court Commissioner within 5 days from today.

14

7.Call the case immediately after the receipt of the Court

Commissioner’s report for further submissions.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxx

(ASHOK B. HINCHIGRI)

Judge”

22.On 26.11.2007 a further report was submitted by the

Court Commissioner in which it is mentioned that material

from the Biscuit Pit is distinctly different from the material

in the dump in dispute. According to the material in the

dump in dispute, the Commissioner further stated that

similar inferences were arrived at in the earlier observations

also and the presently obtained additional details confirms

and compliments the conclusions drawn in the first report.

23.The writ petition was heard by the Division Bench and

while dismissing the writ petition the High Court held that

the appellant does not have any right over the seized iron

ore fines and the report of the Commissioner was not

helpful to the appellant to substantiate the contention that

the seized iron ore fines are legally extracted by the

15

appellant from his lease. The appellant also filed Review

Petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed.

24.The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment of the

High Court, has preferred these appeals.

25.In pursuance to the notice issued by this court, reply

has been filed on behalf of respondents - State of

Karnataka. Learned counsel appearing for the State of

Karnataka, Ms. Anitha Shenoy has invited our attention to

some portions of the counter affidavit.

26.She submits that the entire controversy arose after

receiving a complaint from one Selvaraju. The complaint

was sent by him to the Secretary of the Mining Department.

The complaint reads as under:-

“From :

Selvaraju,

Raising Contractor,

Hind Mercantile Corporation,

Opp. : Taluk Office,

Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk,

Timkur District,

Karnatka State

To

Smt. Latha Krishna Rao

16

Secretary to Mining Department

Karnataka Government,

M.S. Building,

Bangalore.

Madam,

Sub.:Large scale illegal Mining in Chikkanayakanahalli

encouraged and supported by Mr. Basappa Reddy, Director

Mines and Geology, Bangalore.

***

I am bringing to your notice large scale illegal mining

operation by Deepchand Kishanlal, Mining Lease No.2333

and late Kamalabai, Mining Lease No.2187 by her

representative Surendra Singh, G.P.A. holder in the rejected

Mining lease application belonging to Ganapathi Singh. The

illegal working area is called as Biscuit pit. The M.L.

Application (earlier PL. No.3317) has been rejected by the

Government. The issue and matter is pending in the court.

In the meantime, BASANT PODDAR of Deepchand Kishanlal

and SURENDRA SINGH have engaged themselves in large

scale illegal mining and already moved thousands of tones

of iron ore power using the permit of M.L. No.2187 and

2333. The M.L. No.2187 is under renewal and working

permission granted by the Director. Illegal mining is done

very badly all most creating deaths. The illegal operation is

done by the support of the Director Basappa Reddy who is

getting Rs.200 per ton commission.

I request you to stop this illegal mining. Refer this illegal

mining to the D.C., Tumkur for stoppage. If the issue is

referred to Director, no justice will be done as he is totally

and fully involved in this illegal act. I hope justice will be

upheld at your end.

Many thanks

Yours faithfully

SELVARAJU

Copy to :

17

1.Sri. T.N. Chaturvedi, Governor of Karnataka,

Bangalore

2.Sri. N. Dharam Singh, Chief Minister of Karnataka,

Bangalore

3.Sri. K.K. Mishra, Chief Secretary, Government of

Karnataka, Bangalore

4.Sri. Mallikarjun Dyaberi, D.C., Tumkur District

5.The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of

Mines, New Delhi.”

27.In pursuance to the said complaint, the officials of the

Department of Mines and Geology visited Mining Lease

No.2187 on 17.12.2004 and found illegal mining and as

such the same was seized and stored in Survey No.130,

which is the subject matter of the lease in Mining Lease

No.2187. The illegal mining ore which is stored is also

depicted in the mahazar dated 17.12.2004 and the same is

endorsed by the representative of the holder of Mining Lease

No.2187. Perhaps, on the appellant fearing some action on

the complaint of Selvaraju, sent a letter dated 20.12.2004

wherein he disowned the iron ore seized. The letter dated

20.12.2004 has been set out earlier in which it is mentioned

that 1 lakh ton of iron ore was found lying in Mining Lease

No.2187 and the department can take possession and do

whatever they deem it fit. He also mentioned that the

18

appellant has no claim of the above stock. Thereafter on

10.1.2005 the appellant submitted an affidavit with the

Government of Karnataka in which it is mentioned that the

appellant is undertaking to safeguard and safe keep the

said stocks. Respondent no.1 issued a notification on

23.12.2004 but the same could not be acted upon due to

various reasons resulting in another notification of

14.12.2005. It seems that the appellant from this point

wanted to take advantage of the l lakh ton iron ore which

could not be lifted by the respondent or sold by him. The

notification dated 14.12.2005 was challenged in writ

petition No.27521/2005 by the appellant. The appellant

obtained an interim stay. The said writ petition was

dismissed on 25.06.2009. Thereafter, he filed a Review

Petition No.418 of 2009 in writ petition No. 27521 of 2005

which was also dismissed on 12.04.2010. All these orders

are the subject matter of these appeals. Since there was no

stay granted in the review petition No.418 of 2009, the third

notification regarding public auction was issued on

09.12.2009 fixing the date of auction on 24.02.2010. The

appellant again moved an interim application in review

19

petition No.418 of 2009 seeking for stay of auction. The

same was declined by the court. From the record of the

case, it is quite evident that the appellant went on filing writ

petition, review petition and the interim application

challenging the third public notification resulting in a

direction issued by the High Court for getting an inventory

of quantity of iron ore lifted and to be lifted by the

successful bidder and surveyed by the Deputy Director of

Mines and Geology. The appellant was ready to deposit a

sum of Rs.15 crores as to the value of the material and

execute an undertaking not to lift the material. This is

another new contention raised by him in Writ Petition

No.15079 of 2010. The High Court did not grant any

interim relief at that stage resulting in filing of these appeals

against the order dated 29.04.2010 and subsequently writ

petition no. 15079 of 2010 was dismissed as withdrawn

reserving liberty to raise all contentions in Criminal Petition

No.2104 of 2010.

28.The respondents further submitted that the averments

in para 5.4 of the appeal are contrary to what is pleaded in

20

para 5.1 of the appeals resulting in exposure of appellant’s

claim of the dumps. Thus, according to the respondents,

when the appellant himself is not sure of the iron ore stated

to be illegally mined by him, the appellant cannot seek any

relief from this court. The respondents submitted that the

appellant was required to submit monthly report showing

the details of the quantity of iron ore stacked under the

mining lease. It must also mention the total production,

dispatch and the opening balance. The respondents

submitted that the appellant’s lease period having expired

in the year 1998 itself and filing of renewal application in

compliance of Rule 24A of Minor Concession Rules 1960

and failure to produce the statutory requirement like

clearance from competent authority for availing the benefit

under Rule 24 (A)(6), the appellant has not produced

deliberately the working permissions obtained by him for

the period from 1998 to 2004 for establishing a fact that he

was legally mining. In the absence of renewed mining lease

and also failure to produce certificates from the competent

authority would indicate that the appellant is not a legal

holder of the mining lease.

21

29.The respondents also submitted that the averments

regarding non-transporting the mine ore during the relevant

period on the ground of alleged agitation in the period is

totally false. In fact, during the years 2003-2004, the

appellant has transported huge quantity of iron ore and so

also for the period 2004-05. Copy of the statement

disclosing the transportation of iron ore from the years

2001-02 to 2005-06 has also been produced with the reply.

30. The respondents submitted that it is clear that the

appellant had produced 290960 tons of ore and transported

245372 tons of iron ore than what was permissible at that

time which was 5500 metric tons per annum as per IMB

plan and also this statement discloses the fact that the

appellant is denying any illegal mining and claiming relief

for which he is not entitled to in law. In other words, the

respondents clearly focused that the appellant had illegally

mined iron ore much more than the sanctioned capacity in

a clandestine manner and according to the respondents the

appellant was not entitled to any relief from this court. The

respondents further submitted that the appellant has

invented entirely a new story alleging that somebody has

22

illegally mined and stacked the iron ore in his leased area

without his knowledge. According to the respondents it is a

false statement and cannot be accepted. According to the

respondents, to accumulate 1 lakh ton of iron ore, one has

to use thousands of vehicles for transportation and

accumulation. Failure on the part of the appellant to

disclose the same leads to the presumption that the

appellant was involved in illegal mining activity and these

activities would result in an action to be taken under

section 21 read with section 4(1)(a) of The Mines and

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

According to the respondents, the appellant is playing the

game of hide and seek and trying to justify this action

without compliance of the provisions of the Act. The

respondents further submitted that for the first time in the

above petition the appellant has introduced a theory of

situation of iron ore dumps in northern side and southern

side of leased area without disclosing as to where he has

stacked the waste produced during the mining activities as

per the mining plan. This also substantiates the contention

of the respondents, the reason for non production of mining

23

plan issued from the competent authority along with the

map.

31.According to the respondents, the seizure of 1 lakh ton

of iron ore from the leased area of the appellant on

17.12.2004 and after the appellant gave a letter dated

20.12.2004 invented new theory to claim the iron ore seized

by the department taking undue advantage of the waste

dumps stored by him on the northern side of the leased

area. The appellant had also filed an affidavit dated

10.01.2005 wherein he has undertaken to protect and save

the seized iron ore and pursuant to the said undertaking

the appellant was permitted to lift the iron ore produced in

his own mine.

32.It may be relevant to submit that the Deputy Director

of Mines and Geology, Tumkur, on the instructions from the

Director of Mines and Geology, had visited the leased area

of Mining Lease No.2187 on 03.01.2006 along with the

technical staff and found that the appellant had put a

board on his waste dump (stock belonging to Mines and

Geology). It is also relevant to mention that the department

has not erected any board and this fact was also reported to

24

the Director on 04.01.2006. The respondents further

submitted that on 05.01.2006 in the presence of the

persons who were present at the time of seizure Mahazar on

17.12.2004, a detailed location of the seized iron ore was

undertaken and in this regard an affidavit of V. Selvaraju

was also given. It may be relevant to mention that the

appellant filed an affidavit dated 15.02.2006 along with the

letter addressed to the Director of Mines and Geology in

which he has sworn to the contents that he will not

transport either the material which was seized on

17.12.2004 to the extent of 1 lakh ton illegally mined from

biscuit pit or stacked illegally near the boundary of Mining

Lease No.2187 located at Survey No.130 of the Honnebagi

Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District for 1

lakh ton material that was found lying near the crusher

plant and which was mined from Mining Lease No.2187.

33.The respondents further submitted that the

continuous act of the appellant involving himself to grab the

iron ore from the seized dump resulted in the Deputy

Director of Mines and Geology to visit once again the leased

area on 28.01.2006 and found that though the appellant

25

was not permitted to carry out any mining activity or using

of crushing unit factually, it was seen that the appellant

was engaged in such activities resulting in a notice issued

to the appellant on 29.3.2006. The respondent filed a

criminal complaint on 25.2.2006 before the

Chikkanayakanahalli Police against six persons including

the appellant for having indulged in illegal mining activities

and committed theft of iron ore and the same was registered

in Criminal No.20 of 2006 for an offence punishable under

section 21 of The Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957 and under section 379 of the Indian

Penal Code. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the

auction was completed on 24.02.2010. The respondents

also mentioned that the appellant has also filed criminal

petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court

when the court directed the Fast Track Court to dispose of

the criminal revision petition within a stipulated period. At

this juncture, the appellant withdrew his Criminal Petition

No.2104 of 2010 seeking liberty to file criminal revision

petition before the District Court, Tumkur challenging the

order of the learned Magistrate dated 30.03.2010 and he

26

has filed criminal revision petition before the District Judge,

Tumkur against the order of the learned Magistrate dated

30.03.2010 alleging that the order passed by the learned

Magistrate was one behind his back. Though the order

specifically stated that the counsel for the appellant was

present and produced the copy of the order passed by the

High Court of Karnataka in Review Petition No.418 of 2009,

the respondent also mentioned that the appellant is

venturing all kinds of petitions suppressing the facts. The

appellant has an evil desire to grab the iron ore seized and

auctioned. According to the respondent, filing of this

petition is an ultimate result of abuse of the process of law.

34.The respondents also mentioned that the seizure

mahazar drawn on 17.12.2004 shows that the iron ore were

lying within the boundaries mentioned in the said mahazar.

This is the very same boundary mentioned in mahazar

drawn by the police in the year 2006 and the mahazar

drawn at the time of handing over of the iron ore to the

possession of the highest bidder also reveals the same

boundaries. Thus, boundaries in all the three mahazars are

one and the same, thereby, establishing that the stand of

27

the respondent regarding the place where actually iron ore

auctioned is situated also negates the stand taken by the

appellant in regard to his claim. The respondents further

submitted that even the prayer sought in these appeals was

never a subject matter in Writ Petition No. 27521 of 2005

and thus the appellant is estopped from seeking this claim

as the auction process dated 24.2.2010 is completed and

further he had challenged the auction proceedings in writ

petition No.15079 of 2010 wherein the High Court refused

to interfere with the auction proceedings and the appellant

having withdrawn the writ petition No.15079 of 2010. It is

mentioned by the respondents that auction of 24.2.2010

was in consonance with the rules and regulations. The

respondents also submitted that the appellant having failed

in all attempts to stop the public auction, came forward

with a plea to deposit Rs.15 crores in Writ Petition

No.15079 of 2010, spent some time and allowed the

successful bidder to commence lifting of iron ore after

depositing the entire amount of Rs.10.10 crores and

allowing the bidder to transport the iron ore. The

respondents relied on the Audit Report of Kamalabai,

28

Mining Lease No.2187 from 2000-01 to 2005-06. The same

is reproduced as under :

29

29

AUDIT REPORT OF SMT. KAMALA BAI, ML NO.2187 FROM 2000-01 TO 2005-06 IS AS BELOW

Year Production Dispatch Opening Balance Current Year Demand Total Recovery Closing Balance

BalanceInterestFixe

d

Rent

RoyaltyInterest Royalty/Fixe

d

Rent

InterestRoyalty/Fixe

d

Rent

Interest

2000-012160022160 37055 403880 1453008893 231636107579 4926174776 0

2001-028900 8900 74776 0 0 79400 1794617212261406 1794692770 0

2002-039725 9925 92770 0 0 81475 4745 178990154682 4745 19563 0

2003-0415034012186519563 0 0 13198073393 134276

3

1337863 3393 1507 0

2004-0529096024537245582 0 0 2786598 262278836

7

5674011 262 1507 2285906

Excess

paid

2005-065020149436 0 0 0 6194250 6194253207972 0 0 2588547

Excess

paid

r

Deputy Director

Mines and Geology Department

Tumkur

P.S. : In the years 2004-05, the balance indicated in this Chart is 1507, but it should be 45582.

31

30

35.The respondents submitted that at that point of time

the appellant could legally mine upto to 5500 metric tons

only in a year. That limit was increased to 41000 metric

tons a year. It is beyond comprehension how illegal iron ore

could be found on the Mining Lease No.2187 to the tune of

about 1 lakh ton legally mined by the appellant. This was

possible only when the appellant had indulged in massive

illegal mining.

36.The audit report extracted above clearly indicate that

the appellant had quarried and produced iron ore several

times more than its permissible limit particularly in the

years from 2003 to 2006.

37.The theory of somebody had put 1 lakh ton of iron ore

of mining lease is totally untenable and beyond

comprehension. 1 lakh ton of iron ore cannot be kept on

any mining lease all of a sudden without the knowledge of

the appellant. Thousands of trucks have to transport the

said quantity of iron ore and if

it did not belong to the appellant he ought to have

complained immediately after someone started dumping

iron ore on his mining lease. According to the respondent -

State, this is a clear case of illegal mining on a massive

scale by the appellant.

38.Mr. Ram Naik, learned senior advocate appearing for

the auction purchaser contended that the appellant has not

approached this court with clean hands. He submitted that

the auction purchaser had purchased the entire iron ore

and also lifted part of it and has already paid huge money to

the respondent. The auction purchaser cannot be denied

right to lift the remaining iron ore.

39.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length and examined these appeals from various angles. In

our considered view, this court ought not to exercise its

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the

Constitution in a matter of this nature. Interim order, if

any, stands vacated. These appeals are totally devoid of any

merit and are accordingly dismissed with costs.

33

…………………………………. .J.

(DALVEER BHANDARI)

………………………………… ..J.

(DEEPAK VERMA)

New Delhi;

April 11, 2011

34