Summary
The Supreme Court rejected Sarda Mines’ claim that its 2004 environmental clearance operated retrospectively or limited only iron-ore lumps while permitting greater run-of-mine extraction. The clearance governed the total iron-ore ROM and commenced on its grant, with 2004-05 as the first production year on a pro rata basis. Earlier mining remained lawful within the 1999 permission’s 1.4 lakh tonnes annually. The CEC was directed to recalculate excess mining and the consequent penalty.
Issues
- Whether the environmental clearance related back to renewal of the mining lease.
- Whether the clearance limited only lumps or the entire iron-ore ROM extraction.
- How excess production and penalty should be recalculated.
Held
- The applications were considered only on environmental-clearance validity and excess production. Lease grant or renewal and the other issues in the CEC report were outside the present determination. (¶¶ 3, 4, 22)
- The 2004 clearance could not operate retrospectively from the 2001 lease renewal. Production under it commenced in 2004-05 pro rata; prior mining was lawful only within the 1999 permission’s annual limit of 1.4 lakh tonnes and could not be penalised within that limit. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Read with the prior permission, statutory context and the extraction process, the clearance concerned iron-ore ROM rather than lumps alone. Treating lumps as the sole limit would permit unjustified additional ROM extraction and defeat the clearance’s environmental purpose. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Excess production was to be assessed on total ROM extraction and the clearance’s actual commencement and terms. The CEC had six weeks to rework the quantum and consequent penalty; the company and authorities were to provide all relevant records. (¶¶ 13, 21, 23, 24)
- The substantive applications were disposed of only to the extent and on the directions stated. (¶ 25)
Result
Applications disposed of to the stated extent. CEC to recalculate excessive or illegal mining and consequent penalty within six weeks on the Court’s interpretation, with relevant records supplied by the company and authorities.