Summary
The NGT had jurisdiction over environmental damage from Meghalaya coal mining and could appoint supervised expert committees and create a restoration fund. Tribal mineral ownership did not exempt mining from the statutory lease, approval, safety and environmental regime. The ban did not bar lawful mining with approved plans. Automatic vesting of extracted coal in the State was rejected; disposal through Coal India and transfer of ₹100 crore from the existing restoration fund were directed.
Issues
- Whether the NGT had environmental jurisdiction and power to establish committees and a restoration fund.
- How the mining statutes and Sixth Schedule applied to privately or community-owned minerals in Meghalaya.
- Whether the mining ban, ₹100 crore deposit, automatic coal vesting and disposal directions should stand.
Provisions considered
- Sections 14, 15 and 19, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010The pleaded and proved pollution involved Schedule I enactments and substantial environmental questions; the Tribunal’s flexible procedure supported expert assistance and effective restoration directions. (¶¶ 55–72, 153–161)
- Rule 24, National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011The power to secure justice and effectuate orders supported supervised committees and the Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund. (¶ 156–168)
- Section 4(1), Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957The prohibition on mining without the statutory lease applied to any person and area, including private and community mineral owners in Meghalaya. (¶ 98–105)
- Rules 41, 42 and 63, Mineral Concession Rules, 1960Chapter V governed privately owned minerals; the owner grants the lease, with previous Central approval for coal routed through the State. (¶¶ 104–105, 122–133)
- Sixth Schedule, paragraphs 3, 9 and 12A, Constitution of IndiaThe Schedule did not exclude the mining statute without a Presidential notification, confer mineral-lease legislative power on District Councils, or prevent the supervised environmental measures. (¶¶ 76–92, 138–144, 168)
- Section 21, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957Unlawful extraction attracted statutory consequences but did not automatically vest ownership in the State; coal already seized in registered cases required separate statutory treatment. (¶¶ 180–182, 189)
Held
- The pollution allegations and expert material established substantial environmental questions under scheduled pollution enactments. The absence of the mining statutes from Schedule I did not defeat this environmental jurisdiction. (¶ 59–72)
- Private and community mineral ownership was recognised, but the mining statute applied without a Sixth Schedule exemption. A compliant lease and prior Central approval remained necessary; the private mineral owner, rather than the State as lessor, grants the Chapter V lease. (¶¶ 73–111, 122–130)
- The State retained statutory regulatory responsibilities, including mine safety and environmental compliance. District Councils could not legislate contrary to the Parliamentary mineral-regulation regime. (¶¶ 112–121, 131–144)
- The ban on illegal mining was justified, but did not prevent mining under a lawful lease with an approved mining plan and statutory compliance. (¶¶ 145–151, 191(13))
- Expert committees and the restoration fund were within the NGT’s powers. Retained Tribunal control meant no delegation of essential judicial functions or encroachment on District Councils’ administration. (¶ 152–168)
- The ₹100 crore restoration deposit was not a fine, penalty or damages against the State. The direction was modified to permit transfer from the existing restoration fund to CPCB solely for environmental restoration. (¶ 175–179)
- Extracted coal did not automatically vest in the State. Assessed stocks were to pass to Coal India for disposal, with owners receiving the balance after transport costs, Coal India’s 10%, royalty, restoration-fund payments and taxes; seized coal in registered cases was separately governed by Section 21. (¶ 180–190)
Result
Appeals 10720, 10611, 10907/2018 and 5295/2019 dismissed subject to the legal clarifications. Appeal 5272/2016 allowed against automatic coal vesting; Appeal 2968/2019 partly allowed to permit ₹100 crore transfer from MEPRF to CPCB for restoration. Transport applications disposed of through the directed State–Katakey Committee–Coal India mechanism for assessed coal; seized coal in registered cases left to Section 21 proceedings.