JUDGMENT :- (The Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed by the respondent No.4 on 20.12.2008 vide Annexure-P and etc.) (Delivered by P.D.Dinakaran, C.J.) 1 The petitioner is an “User Agency” as defined under Rule 2(h) of the Karnataka Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003. Admittedly, the impugned quarry is in the forest area, which requires the prior permission under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short ‘FC Act’). 2 Pursuant to the approval of the Central Government dated 15/16th March, 2005 under section 2 of the FC Act, the State Government entered into an agreement dated 4.8.2005 with the petitioner for mining iron ore in Karadikolla village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary district over an extent of fifty hectares under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ’MMDR Act’) in the forest area and thereafter the petitioner has obtained consent letter from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board on 9.1.2006. 3 Clauses 7 and 16 of the lease Agreement dated 4.8.2005 entered into between the petitioner and the fourth respondent-Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary Division, read as follows: “7. The balance 73.84 hectares forest land proposed for afforestation, which is crisscrossed with other mines/roads, shall be developed / reclaimed as a green belt/safety zone by the User Agency at project cost. The possession of this land shall remain with the User Agency as recommended by the State Government. 16. The Forest land shall not be used for any purpose other than that specified in the proposal.” 4 As the petitioner did not submit any report complying with clauses 7 and 16 of the Lease Agreement dated 4.8.2005, by proceedings dated 24.8.2007 the fourth respondent called upon the petitioner to submit a report with regard to the reformation and rehabilitation works in its mining area as to the compliance with the afforestation over an extent of 73.84 hectares. 5 The petitioner, vide communication dated 20.9.2007 gave all the details regarding steps and measures taken in respect of compliance with various enactments. Being not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the fourth respondent issued show-cause notice dated 10.9.2008. 5 The petitioner, vide communication dated 20.9.2007 gave all the details regarding steps and measures taken in respect of compliance with various enactments. Being not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the fourth respondent issued show-cause notice dated 10.9.2008. Of-course, based on the findings of the spot inspection held on 3.12.2008, the fourth respondent by proceedings dated 20.12.2008, which is impugned in the writ petition, passed the following Order: “ORDER After verifying of all the above mentioned facts, the said mining lease area of 50 hectares granted under Section-2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 by the Central and State Government vide letter under reference (1) and (2) imposed certain conditions, under condition No.(7) in 73.84 hectares the green belt/safety zone was to be developed due to non-compliance of this condition the Deputy Conservator of Forests(Central), Conservator of Forest, Bellary, the undersigned herein below, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Bellary, Range Forest Officer, Sandur have inspected the spot several times and observed non-compliance of the said condition, on several occasions, informative letters, notices, seeking reasons were issued to the said lease holder, also the violation of the conditions imposed by the Central and the State Government and the lease agreement entered in this Office is observed. The unused soil from the mining area is dumped outside the lease area and by this act the forest area is encroached and the plants therein are destroyed is noticed from the above facts. Further violated of the conditions imposed by the Central and State Governments and condition 7 and 16 of the Lease Agreement entered in this office and also violated provisions of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Forest Rules, 1969. Therefore under condition 27 of the Lease Agreement until the above mentioned conditions are complied with the mining activities of the said mining lease may be temporarily suspended. As per this order legal action would be initiated and reported to this office. 6. Since the petitioner also committed offence by dumping the iron ore waste outside the leased out area, criminal action was initiated by the fourth respondent herein by filing FIR dated 15.2.2008 in FOC No.65/08-09. As per this order legal action would be initiated and reported to this office. 6. Since the petitioner also committed offence by dumping the iron ore waste outside the leased out area, criminal action was initiated by the fourth respondent herein by filing FIR dated 15.2.2008 in FOC No.65/08-09. 7 Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 20.12.2008 of the fourth respondent and filing of FIR dated 15.2.2008, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari, and quash the order passed in No.M1/MNG/BA/P.V.S./Ga.Gu.Sum.1046/1991/92 by the respondent No.4 dated 20.12.2008 vide Annexure ‘P’. (ii) Further be pleased to permit this petitioner to continue mining it its leased area and direct the respondents to issue forest transit passes to the petitioner to transport the iron ore removed from the area measuring 50 hectares under Mining Lease No.2587 situated in Karadikolla, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. 2.1. The respondents resisted the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner violated clauses 7 and 16 of the Lease Agreement dated 4.8.2005 referred to above and failed to develop afforestation over an extent of 73.84 hectares of land. The learned Government Advocate also invited our attention that they have already given a notice on 10.9.2008 to the petitioner to show-cause as to why the mining activities should not be suspended for having violated clauses 7 and 16 of the Lease Agreement dated 4.8.2005. 2.2. The said notice was followed by another notice dated 17.9.2008. Spot inspection was also conducted on 3.12.2008. After the spot inspection, the Range Forest Officer in his proceedings dated 5.12.2008 reported to the fourth respondent that in spite of several notices to the petitioner it has not responded properly to the directions issued by the officers. The spot inspection report of the Range Forest Officer reads as hereunder: “1. In the year 2008-09 they claimed to have planted 36,000 saplings in 10 hectares of land and the said area consists of two parts – in one part all the plantation has been submerged under the wastage flowing from the quarrying land and in the remaining area it appears that about 8 to 10 thousand saplings have been planted. Apart from that, in the area allotted for quarrying few saplings have been planted on both sides of the roads. 2. Apart from that, in the area allotted for quarrying few saplings have been planted on both sides of the roads. 2. The said licence holders have formed one check-dam in the year 2008-09 and except that they have not taken any steps for preservation of water and soil. 3. Wastage from the quarrying land is allowed to flow, which is covering the forest area every year, and no steps have been taken to prevent the same by the licence holders. 4. The said licence holders are not conducting quarrying operation scientifically. They are doing the same in haphazard manner on account of which high walls have been formed; and further the wastage has been dumped unscientifically and therefore, it is not safe for further works of quarrying. 5. Any number of times during inspection though the licence holder had been suggested to take appropriate steps in respect of above mentioned aspects by issuing notice even by the Higher Officers they have not considered the said suggestions seriously; and thereby they are in the habit of repeating the same mistakes, which had been noticed on earlier occasions.” 2.3. It is further contended by the learned Government Advocate that only after giving show cause notice to the petitioner based on the report, the fourth respondent was constrained to pass the impugned order, of course, after giving all sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to explain the violations of clauses 7 and 16 of lease agreement dated 4.8.2005. 3.1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 3.2. Sri M.M.Swamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to carry out afforestation work over an extent of 73.84 hectares of land as required to be done in the impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2008. 3.3. On behalf of the Government, the learned Government Advocate has filed a memo dated 22.4.2009 prescribing the schedule of afforestation to be complied with by the petitioner. The same reads as hereunder: “Schedule May 2009 : Digging of pits and trenches June 2009 : 25% of total afforestation has to be done in that month July 2009 : 50% of target of afforestation has to be done August 2009 : 25% of target of afforestation has to be done. Sep. The same reads as hereunder: “Schedule May 2009 : Digging of pits and trenches June 2009 : 25% of total afforestation has to be done in that month July 2009 : 50% of target of afforestation has to be done August 2009 : 25% of target of afforestation has to be done. Sep. & Oct ’09 : In these two months weeding, soil working, Maintenance of plants has to be done.” 3.4 Pursuant to the said memo dated 22.4.2009 of the Government, the petitioner also has filed an affidavit dated 24.4.2009, undertaking to comply with the said terms of the memo of the Government, and the said reads as hereunder: “AFFIDAVIT I, K.R.M.Reddy, S/o K.G.Rama Reddy, aged about 52 years authorized signatory, P.Venganna Shetty and Brothers, Baldota Enclave, Abheraj Baldota Road, Hospet, 583 203, today at Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I am the authorized signatory or the petitioner Company in the above case and I know the facts of the case. Hence I am swearing to this affidavit. 2. I subject that the above said writ petition has been filed for the relief of quashing the order passed in No.M1/MNG/BA/P.V.S./Ga.Gu.Sum.1046/1991/92 by the respondent No.4 dated 20.12.2008 vide Annexure ‘P’ on the facts and grounds mentioned in the memorandum of main writ petition. 3. I submit that during the course of arguments it was suggested that the State would grant time to the petitioner for afforestation in an area of 73.84 hectares. In this regard the State has also filed a memo dated 22.4.2009 giving the program of the said afforestation. 4. I further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to plant a total number of seedlings of 1,24,100 of all the variety as specified by the State in its Memo and as per the scheduled described in the memo dated 22.4.2009. The petitioner further submits that the entire afforestation works would be undertaken under the supervision of the Range Forest Officer, Sandur.” 4.1. The petitioner further submits that the entire afforestation works would be undertaken under the supervision of the Range Forest Officer, Sandur.” 4.1. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioner, it is hereby ordered that the petitioner, as undertaken in the affidavit dated 24.4.2009, shall, without fail, make afforestation over an extent of 73.84 hectares of land as required in the impugned proceedings dated 20.12.2008 under the supervision of the fourth respondent and/or his officials as follows: (i) May 2009 : Digging of pits and trenches June 2009 : 25% of total afforestation has to be done (19 ha.) July 2009 : 50% of the remaining target of afforestation has to be Done (28 ha.) August 2009 : remaining target of afforestation has to be done (i.e. 27 ha) September & : In these two months weeding, soil working, October 2009 : maintenance of plants has to be done: (ii) the petitioner shall remove the iron ore dumped outside the leased out area within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order; (iii) the petitioner shall comply with the above conditions without any deviation from the above undertaking given in the affidavit dated 24.4.2009, failing which the fourth respondent shall proceed with the cancellation of the impugned lease and stop all further mining operations; and (iv) the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to undertake the mining operation in the leased out area which is not disputed by the forest authorities. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. CJ & VGSJ 03/06/2009 Order in W.P.No.17811 of 2008 (GM-MMS) Sri M.M.Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks modification of the order at para 4.1(ii) passed in W.P.No.17811/2008, which reads as under: “(ii) the petitioner shall remove the iron ore dumped outside the leased out area within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order”. 2. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has not dumped any iron-ore/waste outside the leased out area and therefore the question of removing the same within fifteen days does not arise. 3. We are unable to appreciate the said submission in view of the statement recorded in the F.I.R. dated 15.02.2008 in FOC No.65/08-09, which reads hereunder: TABLE 4. 2. According to learned counsel, the petitioner has not dumped any iron-ore/waste outside the leased out area and therefore the question of removing the same within fifteen days does not arise. 3. We are unable to appreciate the said submission in view of the statement recorded in the F.I.R. dated 15.02.2008 in FOC No.65/08-09, which reads hereunder: TABLE 4. That apart, even in the objection statement filed by the State, it is clearly stated that the petitioner has also encroached the forest land and thus violated the conditions. 5. In that view of the matter, directing the petitioner to remove the iron-ore/waste dumped outside the leased out area within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order does not required any modification. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks further time to remove the iron-ore/waste dumped outside the leased out area, if any. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, suffice it to permit the petitioner to remove the iron-ore/waste dumped outside the leased out area within fifteen days from today. 8. If the petitioner has any difficulty in locating the area where iron-ore/waste is alleged to have been dumped, the Depute Conservator of Forests is directed to locate the said area where the iron-ore/waste dumped outside the leased out area within five days from today. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.