SC pulls up Karnataka over delay in permitting mining resumption

The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the Karnataka government over delay in renewal and extension of iron ore mining leases, asking it if there was some policy paralysis in the state and the bureaucrats have left everything for the court to decide.

“Is it policy paralysis? Why don’t you take a call? We have seen so many cases. You have created a cause of actions for them (lease holders) to initiate litigation,” a bench of Justices N V Ramana and Krishna Murari asked senior advocate Guru Krishna Kumar, representing the state government.

“Your bureaucracy has failed to take a decision. You are making us to use harsh words. After 50 years or so, you say it is a forest land. Has bureaucracy left everything for the court to decide. Who is responsible for not granting lease,” the bench asked the counsel.

The state counsel tried to reason out by saying the monitoring committee was working as per the instructions of the court.

The court, however, went on to question the state government asking why the forest department declared some lease areas as falling under the forest land though mining was going on over there for being part of revenue land. It also asked why the state failed to grant extension, by reducing the leases as merely “paper leases”.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave and advocates Aditya Narayana and Rohit Sharma, representing Mineral Enterprise Ltd, challenged the validity of the Karnataka HC’s judgement of October 10, 2019, that had rejected their plea for resumption of mining operations.

“The monitoring committee, comprising Karnataka forest department officers, can’t defy the SC judgement. We can’t be damned in such a fashion. The SC can’t allow its own monitors to behave in this manner. They are taking everybody including the court to ride,” Dave submitted before the court.

On this, the bench further expressed its displeasure, saying after its judgement allowing resumption of mining in the state, the matter related to renewal of leases was to be considered.

“There is a duty cast upon the bureaucrats to process the application. When the CEC also gave a report, what is the point of objection by monitoring committee,” the bench further asked the state counsel.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing as amicus curiae, submitted that the monitoring committee was discharging a trust reposed on them. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Samaj Parivartan Samudaya, contended that the particular lease holder was earlier imposed a huge fine for mining in forest land.

The bench, however, told the state counsel, “It is for state to take a call. Don’t force us to pass order. We expect you to come with some order by next Monday, March 16.”