2012 (2) TMI 708 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of State Government under Article 246 and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
2. Validity of State Government's decision to lift the ban on the sale of iron ore fines.
3. Compliance with Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2002.
4. Environmental concerns related to mining operations.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of State Government under Article 246 and Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957:
The petitioner argued that Article 246 of the Constitution demarcates the jurisdiction of the Central and State Governments. The Central Government has exclusive power to legislate on matters in List I (Union List), including the regulation of mines and minerals development (Entry 54). The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, framed by the Central Government, regulate these areas. The petitioner contended that the State Government has no jurisdiction to issue directions or frame rules on subjects covered under List I, such as allowing the sale of iron ore fines.

2. Validity of State Government's decision to lift the ban on the sale of iron ore fines:
The State Government issued a policy decision on 27th August 2011, lifting the ban on the sale of iron ore fines. The Advocate General argued that this decision corrected a previous mistake and was in the State's interest to avoid loss of royalty. The State's decision was challenged on the grounds that it was beyond its authority, as the power to regulate mining operations and environmental protection lies with the Central Government. The Court found that the State Government's notification was issued without legal authority and in contravention of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and related rules.

3. Compliance with Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2002:
The Advocate General argued that the petitioner did not follow the procedure outlined in the Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2002, such as stating no personal interest and clarifying the public interest involved. The Court acknowledged this procedural lapse but chose not to dismiss the petition on these grounds alone, given the broader legal issues at stake.

4. Environmental concerns related to mining operations:
The petitioner cited environmental regulations under the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, which mandate precautions for environmental protection during mining operations. Rule 33 specifically deals with the management of waste materials, including fines, to prevent environmental degradation. The Court noted that while fines must be managed to avoid pollution, the rules do not prohibit their sale. The State Government's policy decision included conditions for the disposal of fines, which were found to be beyond its authority.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the State Government's notification dated 27th August 2011 was issued without legal authority. The Court emphasized that the right to dispose of minerals, including fines, is granted to lessees under the statutory lease deed (Form 'K') and relevant rules. The Court did not impose any costs on the petitioner but highlighted the importance of thorough research in Public Interest Litigations, especially those involving state revenue.