Judgment :- (This W.P. is filed praying to: Direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to lift the dumped material, lying in the mining yard of ML 593/993 AT Hirekandawadi & Tanigehalli villages of Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District, by collecting the requisite fee & royalty.) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to lift the dumped material lying in the mining yard situate at Hirekandawadi and Tanigehalli villages of Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District, in respect of Mining Lease No.593/993, by collecting the requisite fee and royalty. 2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was granted mining lease in M.L. No.593/993 situate at Hirekandawadi and Tanigehalli villages of Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District, in the year 1965 and since then, by investing huge amount and deploying men and material, the petitioner was carrying on mining activity till 1985. After completion of the lease period, the petitioner filed requisite application on 22.06.1984 seeking renewal of M.L. No.593/993. However, the said application was not considered by the respondents 1 and 2 and wherefore, the petitioner filed W.P. No.25827/1995 seeking necessary direction to the respondents to consider its renewal application. This Hon’ble Court by order dated 06.07.1995, directed the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner’s renewal application. Petitioner had also submitted several representations to the respondents 1 and 2 requesting them to consider the renewal application. The first respondent renewed the licence for a period of 20 years from 05.07.1985 by notification dated 23.08.2007. As the notification for first renewal from 1985 ended in 2005, on the same day, further renewal for a period of 20 years from 05.07.2005 was also granted vide notification dated 23.08.2007. 2.1 It is averred that the mining operation was managed by Sri R.G. Janthakal and as he had become old and was not able to manage the affairs, he executed a power of attorney in favour of Sri Vinod Goel for managing the affairs of the petitioner – Concern, including the mining activity. After coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, the Forest Department declared the area coming under the aforesaid Mining Lease (ML No.593/993) as “reserved forest area” and prohibited carrying out of any mining activity, without obtaining forest clearance. Accordingly, the petitioner sought for forest clearance in the year 1996. After coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, the Forest Department declared the area coming under the aforesaid Mining Lease (ML No.593/993) as “reserved forest area” and prohibited carrying out of any mining activity, without obtaining forest clearance. Accordingly, the petitioner sought for forest clearance in the year 1996. The fourth respondent by letter dated 09.10.2007, directed the Conservator of Forests, Bellary Circle, Bellary, to conduct spot inspection and submit a report with reference to the claim made by the petitioner as to the availability of old waste dumps to the extent of 1,17,800 Metric Tonnes. The Conservator of Forests, Bellary Circle, Bellary forwarded the same to the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Chitradurga Division, with a request to conduct spot inspection and to submit a report. The Deputy Conservator of Forests conducted spot inspection and submitted a letter to the Conservator of Forests, Bellary Circle, stating that there are 9 old dumps in the above said mining area and enclosed a sketch demarcating the said dumps. The Conservator of Forests, Bellary Circle, forwarded the letter and report submitted by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Chitradurga Division to the fourth respondent by letter dated 29.10.2007. As the petitioner had to obtain forest clearance to carry out mining activity, it had applied for forest clearance during 1996 and the same was under correspondence with the Forest Department and subsequently, once again on 07.08.2008, the petitioner approached the Forest Department for considering its application for forest clearance. It is further averred that while the petitioner was carrying on mining activity under the aforesaid mining lease from 1965 to 1985, during the said period, there was no value for Iron ore fines of grades less than 62% and 63%. Hence, the excavated material of the said grades to the extent of 125000 Metric Tonnes, which belonged to the petitioner was treated as waste dump and dumped in the mining yard. Petitioner is the owner of the said material since they were extracted prior to 1985 when the mining lease was valid and there was no restriction from the Forest Department for carrying out mining activity. 2.2 It is further averred that the petitioner approached the second respondent seeking permission to lift the said dumped material, which was extracted prior to 1985 and before the Forest (Conservation) Act, came into force. 2.2 It is further averred that the petitioner approached the second respondent seeking permission to lift the said dumped material, which was extracted prior to 1985 and before the Forest (Conservation) Act, came into force. The second respondent based on the available records, directed the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology to conduct a detailed enquiry in regard to the waste dump available in the said area and submit a report. The Deputy Director, Mines and Geology, conducted inspection and submitted a report stating that there are old waste dumps available in the mining yard. The mining material which was considered waste dump during extraction prior to 1985 is very much available in the mining yard and the same was extracted under valid mining lease and the same belongs to the petitioner. As the extracted material did not carry any value prior to 1985, it was dumped at the mining yard as waste. However, as the said grade material is usable now, it is very much essential that the said material, which was extracted prior to 1985, under valid mining lease, be allowed to be lifted. The fact of there being old waste dump in the mining yard is also acknowledged by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology in his report. Petitioner sought for forest clearance as the same was still under consideration, no mining activity was carried out in the said area. However, in regard to the dumped material, which was already extracted prior to 1985 under valid mining lease, the petitioner was required to be permitted to transport the same as it would not be carrying out any fresh mining activity in the area, but, would only be lifting the already dumped material in the mining yard. 2.3 It is further averred that the petitioner has already submitted representation dated 01.05.2007 to the third respondent-Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, seeking permission to lift the already dumped material bringing to his notice the fact that the said material had started to loss its character and since it was dumped in the year, some unscrupulous elements have even stolen substantial quantity causing huge loss to the petitioner. However, in the said representation, the petitioner had mentioned the quantity of old dumps available as 3,00,000 Metric Tonnes, but, at present, the quantity is estimated to be only 1,17,800 MT. However, in the said representation, the petitioner had mentioned the quantity of old dumps available as 3,00,000 Metric Tonnes, but, at present, the quantity is estimated to be only 1,17,800 MT. However, the third respondent has not taken any action on the said representation. Petitioner had approached the second respondent also on the same lines requesting him to accord permission to life the old waste dumps available in the mining yard. The second respondent issued a letter to the fourth respondent intimating the fact that the petitioner had obtained renewal licence in respect of ML No.593/993 and that after detailed inspection, it was found that there were old waste dumps of Iron ore to the extent of 1,17,800 MT lying in the mining yard. The second respondent directed the petitioner to obtain forest clearance and in that regard, the petitioner’s Manager approached the third respondent’s office and in spite of his repeated efforts, the third respondent has been postponing issuance of permission to lift the old waste dumps. 2.4 It is the further case of the petitioner that one Sri Irfan Shaikh, resident of Noida, Uttar Pradesh, who identified himself as an office clerk at the Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, intimated that he would get the clearance and believing him, the officer of the petitioner explained the case. The said Irfan Shaikh provided a letter permitting the petitioner to lift the old waste dumps from the mining yard. Since the said letter was given by one of the Clerics of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the petitioner believed the same and furnished the same to the second respondent and sought for permission to lift the old waste dumps in the mining yard. However, the second respondent postponed issuance of the requisite permission. Once again, the petitioner approached the third respondent seeking forest clearance and also for permission to lift the old waste dumps from the mining yard and at that point of time, the petitioner received a letter dated 06.05.2008 from the Director of Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi stating that the letter granting permission in its favour was a fake one and then only, the petitioner came to know that the letter issued by one Irfan Shaikh was a fake one. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 07.06.2008 to the Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, explaining the actual facts and sought for forest clearance for carrying out mining activity. Similar letter was also submitted to the Principal Secretary, Forest, Ecology and Environment Department, Bangalore, on 28.03.2009 and the second respondent. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s representation seeking permission to lift the already dumped material in the mining yard, which was extracted prior to 1985 to the extent of 1,17,800 Mt, the petitioner having left with no other alternative or efficacious remedy, has preferred this writ petition seeking for the above said relief. 3. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Iron ore dumped in the mining yard in question was extracted by the petitioner prior to 1985, when there was a valid lease and the provision of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) had not come into force and the forest authorities had also found that there is dump of 1,17,800 MT of Iron ore. Petitioner was permitted to remove the same after payment of royalty and other charges, which may be ordered to be paid by this Court. Learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner has now stopped the mining operation since no permission has been granted under Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to remove the dump of Iron ore weighing 1,17,800 MT subject to the such terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit. Petitioner is ready to pay royalty, EPF, Net Present Value, Compensatory Afforestation Charges. 5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has now stopped mining operation and there is Iron ore dumped in the mining yard of the petitioner weighing about 1,17,800 MT and since the petitioner had valid licence when the said Iron ore was extracted, the respondents are empowered to collect royalty, EPF, Net Present Value, and the petitioner may be permitted to remove the dump of Iron Ore weighing 1,17,800 MT by imposing necessary conditions. 6. 6. This Court after considering the contentions of the counsel appearing for the parties, by order dated 24.04.2009, directed the Forest Department to furnish the following details: “i. What is the actual quantity of dumped material available there in the mining yard; ii. What would be the royalty, EPF, NPV which the petitioner is otherwise liable to pay; iii. What is the damage they have caused to the flora and fauna; and iv. the area of afforestation, if the petitioner is liable to make it.” 7. Learned Government Advocate has produced the letter written by the Deputy Conservator of Forests dated 18.06.2009 in compliance with the direction issued by this Court dated 24.04.2009 and furnished the particulars regarding the same. It is stated in the said report that: there are 9 old dumps in the mining leased area in question and the quantity of the material as assessed by the Department of Mines and Geology is 1,17,800 metric Tonnes; no mining activities were carried out in the area since 1985 and due to dumping of the material, forest growth and vegetation in the area and surrounding streams were disturbed; the information with regard to royalty payable by the petitioner was to be furnished by the Department of Mines and Geology; the surrounding area measuring about 12.OOha was damaged and damage was estimated at the rate of Rs.8.03 lakhs per hectare and hence, in respect of 12.00 hectares of land, the damage in the mandatory terms payable by the petitioner would amount to Rs,96,36,000/-; Net Present Value (NPV) payable by the petitioner has been assessed at Rs.6,49,94,820/-; petitioner would be liable to pay Compensatory Afforestation Charges at the rate of Rs.84,000/- per hectare for 80.94 hectare amount to Rs.67,98,960/-, if the user agency took action to transfer and mutate 80.94 hectares non-forest land in favour of the Forest Department; if the compensatory afforestation land was not available and the petitioner failed to identify and transfer non-forest land in favour of the forest department, double the amount i.e., Rs.67,98,960 x 2 times = Rs.1,35,97,920/- is to be paid by the petitioner to raise the compensatory afforestation in the forest land and environmental loss was to be assessed by the Environmental Department. 8. 8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay royalty charges and EFP or in the alternative, compensatory Afforestation charges as assessed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests and submitted that necessary direction be issued. In support of the said contention, learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Samatha Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others [(1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 191]. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. Indian Mineral Mining Co., Vs. State Of U.P. And Others (1984 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 709), wherein it has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that removal and appropriation of the material excavated should not be detained, in cases, where a lessee seeks permission of the Court for removal of the stock at the site on the ground that long storage would adversely affect the material to its prejudice and keeping watch on the stock involves heavy financial burden. It is further observed by the Apex Court that even if removal and appropriation of the materials to the extent indicated above is to be permitted, it must be strictly regulated and it has to be ensured that under the pretext of removal of the stock, further mining was not done and in order to ensure that removal is limited to the quantities specified by the Committee and that no further mining or excavation is done by the lessee, a Committee is to be appointed consisting of the Director of Geology (Mines) and Additional District Magistrate and time limit should be fixed for the completion of the entire operation. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Orissa High Court in Penguin Trading And Agencies Limited Vs. State Of Orissa And Others (AIR 2007 ORISSA 104). 9. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record. 10. The material on record would clearly show that the petitioner is not carrying on any mining activity after coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, in the mining leased area (M.L. No.593.993). 9. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record. 10. The material on record would clearly show that the petitioner is not carrying on any mining activity after coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, in the mining leased area (M.L. No.593.993). Nine dumps of Iron ore found in the said areas quantified at 1,17,800 Metric Tonnes by the Deputy Conservator of Forests is the Iron ore, which had been extracted when the mining lease was valid and was in force. Respondents do not disputes that the petitioner is not carrying on mining activity at present as no permission has been obtained by the petitioner under Section 2 of the Act for carrying on mining activity in the forest area. Respondents do not also dispute that there are 09 Iron ore dumps in the mining lease area given to the petitioner quantified at 1,17,800 Metric Tonnes. It is also not disputed that the said Iron ore had been extracted when the mining lease was in operation. Under the circumstances, when the petitioner has already stopped the mining operation and wants to shift the dumped Iron ore and in the absence of any rival claim regarding the said Iron ore and in view of the stand taken by the respondents that the said Iron ore was extracted when the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner was in force and in the light of the principle laid down in the decisions cited by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, we hold that the petitioner would be entitled to permission to remove the dumped Iron Ore quantified at 1,17,800 Metric Tonnes in the mining leased area. However, it is necessary to impose appropriate conditions to satisfy that the State would not suffer any damage or loss by permitting the petitioner to shift the dumped Iron Ore quantified at 1,17,800 Metric Tonnes. However, it is necessary to impose appropriate conditions to satisfy that the State would not suffer any damage or loss by permitting the petitioner to shift the dumped Iron Ore quantified at 1,17,800 Metric Tonnes. The evaluation of the amount due to be paid by the petitioner for shifting the dumped Iron ore comprising of: Royalty amounting to Rs.11,04,375/- ; damage of forest land in monetary terms amounting to Rs.96,36,000/-; Net Present value and EPF for the entire area amounting to Rs.6,49,94,820/-and compensatory afforestation charges amount to Rs.67,98,960/-or penalty on compensatory afforestation charges if the land is not available and if the petitioner fails to identify and transfer the non-forest land amounting to Rs.1,35,97,920/-, is not disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to pay the said amount before lifting the dumped Iron ore from the leased area. Accordingly, we pass the following Order:- The Writ Petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to remove the dumped Iron Ore quantified at 1,17,800 Metric Tonnes lying in the mining yard (M.L. No.593.993) situate at Hirekandawadi and Tanigehalli Villages of Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District, subject to the following conditions: (i) The Iron ore which has already been extracted and quantified at 1,17,800 Metric Tonnes lying stacked as on date, can be lifted by the petitioner upon proper notice to the Mining Authorities. (ii) On getting such notice, the Mining Authorities shall depute a competent Officer, who shall remain present at the time of such lifting. (iii) Such lifting will take place in accordance with law and upon payment of required royalty to the State. (iv) The lifting operation must be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order or production of the certified copy of the order, whichever is earlier. (v) Petitioner shall make payment of the following amounts before lifting the dumped Iron ore: (a) Royalty : Rs. 11,04,375/- (b) Damage of forest land in monetary terms : Rs. 96,36,000/- (c) Net Present Value, EPF for the entire area : Rs.6,49,94,820/- (d) Compensatory Afforestation charges : Rs. (v) Petitioner shall make payment of the following amounts before lifting the dumped Iron ore: (a) Royalty : Rs. 11,04,375/- (b) Damage of forest land in monetary terms : Rs. 96,36,000/- (c) Net Present Value, EPF for the entire area : Rs.6,49,94,820/- (d) Compensatory Afforestation charges : Rs. 67,98,960/- OR Penalty on compensatory afforestation charges if the land is not available and if the petitioner fails to identify and transfer the non-forest land : Rs.1,35,97,920/- (e) Any other statutory dues (vi) It is made clear that it is for the forest authorities to decide, whether Net Present Value as directed to be paid, is adjustable towards the approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly.