ORDER : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. The petitioner claim to be a registered society formed to protect the poor, illiterate and indigenous people of Shella village so have filed the instant petition projecting therein that the respondents No. 7 (Lum-Mawshun Minerals Pvt. Ltd.) and 8 (Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd.) are two corporate bodies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 whereas, respondent No. 9 (Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd.) is a corporate body incorporated in Bangladesh with its headquarter at Dhaka. (a) The respondent No. 9 is doing business at Dhaka having cement factory located at Chatak whereas, respondents No. 7 and 8 excavate and obtain mineral from Meghalaya, India and supply the same to the respondent No. 9. (b) The income acquired therein and taxes levied are paid to the Government of Bangladesh, thus, deprive the State of Meghalaya and Union of India from receiving its due share of taxes, causing serious loss of revenue and also irreparable loss to the indigenous people residing within the Sixth Schedule area. (c) The State respondents are doing business in violation of the provision of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and (d) The respondents No. 7 and 8 are excavating minerals in gross violation of the Mines Act, 1952. (e) The respondent No. 10 (Headman of Shella village) is not entitled to exercise any right over the land of the village except that being a judicial officer to exercise judicial power when a case is brought before it. (f) It is alleged that an area of 4,36,643 square meter of land have been allegedly sold and leased out in Shella and Tynger village areas rich minerals such as limestone, silt stone, shale and other minerals. (g) It is alleged that the respondent No. 10 has granted purported certificates to 89 (eighty nine) villagers who are not the real owners of the land. On the strength of such certificate, 87 (eighty seven) persons have sold forever and other 2 (two) have leased out the land not belonging to them they have got title deeds in favour of the respondent No. 7 who is not working for the welfare of the tribal and there is no scheme to promote interest in the field of education and industry. Respondent No. 10 has also granted 4 (four) certificate to himself. Respondent No. 10 has also granted 4 (four) certificate to himself. (h) Respondents No. 7 and 8 are operating as subsidiary companies of the respondent No. 9. They have been operating right from the year 2004 in violation of Sections 16, 19 and 20 of the Mines Act, 1952. Finally, it is prayed that transfer of land in favour of the respondent No. 7 and also permission for transfer of land from respondent No. 7 to respondent No. 8 dated 13.03.2006 may be cancelled. Furthermore, respondents No. 7, 8 and 10 may be restrained from excavating minerals from the land in question or conveying the same to respondent No. 9. 2. The petition originally was filed before the Gauhati High Court and registered as PIL No. 40 of 2007, same was admitted on 16.05.2007, interim direction was issued, "not to create any fresh encumbrance on the land in question'. Vide order dated 17.06.2008, the proceedings were deferred in reference to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 23.11.2007. Then, vide order dated 04.06.2010, it was recorded that the matter being pending before the Supreme Court, therefore, the proceedings stand adjourned sine die. The matter pending before the Supreme Court was disposed of on 06.07.2011. 3. The petition was transferred from Gauhati High Court to this Court as it is reflected in the order dated 03.05.2013. 4. Vide order dated 05.03.2014, the proceedings of this PIL were closed on the ground that the issue raised in the petition stand answered in the case of "Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & ors: (2011) 7 SCC 338 , a view was taken that no more directions are required to be passed. 5. A review petition was filed by the petitioner which has been allowed vide the order dated 09.05.2017. While allowing the review petition, the order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6752 of 2008 has been quoted wherein, it has been made clear that no proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court regarding alleged violation of the provisions of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971. Liberty was given to the High Court to proceed with the petition filed by the appellant therein. 6. Liberty was given to the High Court to proceed with the petition filed by the appellant therein. 6. This Court has referred to the order dated 06.07.2011 passed in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. [ (2011) 7 SCC 338 ] wherein, it is mentioned that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made it clear in para 118 of the judgment that the observations in the order as regards the nature of the land shall be taken into account by the competent Court in which title dispute is pending. It was observed by this Court that one title suit is presently pending in the Court of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner at Sohra. It has been observed that all the issues raised in the PIL have not been conclusively decided. It has been further observed that consideration of the PIL on merits would obviously include all the objections of the respondents and for that matter, even if the subject matter of the PIL is not squarely covered by the aforesaid order in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd., the effect of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court therein shall also be taken into consideration to the extent applicable for the purpose of this PIL. 7. Originally there were 17 (seventeen) respondents but during the pendency, cause against the 7 (seven) respondents did not survive therefore, those respondents already stand deleted from the array of respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the parties have filed their written submissions. We have considered the entire material as well as written submissions as filed by the petitioner, respondents No. 1 to 5, respondents No. 7 and 8 and respondent No. 10. 9. The first issue for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is a registered society. (i) Respondents No. 7 and 8 have contended that there is no record of any social activities carried out by the petitioner in the area of operation i.e. Shella and Nongtrai village. Under the Right to Information Act, they have obtained the information that there is no non-governmental organization under the name and style "Shella Action Committee, Rally of Shella Natives" registered under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, 1983. However, an organization under the name and style "The Rally of Shella Village Natives" was registered under the Societies Registration Act 12 of 1983 (No. E.16(Rs.)/of 2006/166) which is nonfunctional as the organization has not been renewed. However, an organization under the name and style "The Rally of Shella Village Natives" was registered under the Societies Registration Act 12 of 1983 (No. E.16(Rs.)/of 2006/166) which is nonfunctional as the organization has not been renewed. (ii) In the petition (Shella Action Committee, Rally of Shella Natives), the petitioner has claimed that it was registered under the Meghalaya Societies Registration Act, 1983. In support whereof, no proof has been placed on record or produced. That being so, the respondents No. 7 and 8 are right in stating that the petitioner in fact had some personal grudge, they neither are well wishers nor are working for the welfare of the area which position is clearly exposed by the villagers because they have not come forward to oppose the mining operation of respondents No. 7, 8 and 9, instead respondents No. 1-5 in their submissions have made it clear that the operational activities of respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 are quite beneficial to the people of the area. The position of the petitioner claiming to be a society for the welfare of the people of the area is eclipsed. Bona fide's of the petitioner are not forthcoming. (iii) Allegation of the petitioner to the effect that land transfer by means of sale/lease in favour of the respondent No. 7 is by the persons who had no title. They have been issued the certificate by the Headman as per the custom which is illegal but the petitioner have not cleared in their pleadings as who are the actual owners of the land, if there would have been some other owners of the land as transferred, then, those land owners would have appeared before the Court after all the matter is pending in the Court from the year 2007 or otherwise they would have challenged the certificate, sale deeds and lease deed which has not been done. 10. The other questions as have been raised by the petitioner, have been lucidly answered by the respondents No. 1 to 5, respondents 7 and 8 and respondent No. 10 in their respective written submissions. But before coming onto those written submissions, it will be advantageous to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & ors: (2011) 7 SCC 338 . The applicant therein is respondent No. 8 herein in this PIL. But before coming onto those written submissions, it will be advantageous to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & ors: (2011) 7 SCC 338 . The applicant therein is respondent No. 8 herein in this PIL. In the said judgment, while referring to various issues pertaining to environment and forest clearance, nature of the land being forest or otherwise and no objection granted. What has been agitated same is answered in para 121 of the judgment:- "121. Accordingly, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of MoEF granting site clearance dated 18-6-1999, EIA clearance dated 9-8-2001 read with revised environmental clearance dated 19-4-2010 and Stage I forest clearance dated 22-4-2010. Accordingly, IA No. 1868 of 2007 preferred by Lafarge stands allowed with no order as to costs. Consequently, IA No. 2937 of 2010 preferred by SAC is dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 5-2-2010: (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2010) 12 SCC 376 ) shall also stand vacated. All other IAs shall stand disposed of." 11. It is also relevant to quote as to what has been observed about Shella Action Committee (SAC) in the said judgment. Para 113 of the judgment is quoted hereunder:- "113. The Report further notes that most of the members of the SAC were not the residents of the locality (Shella Village) and were living in Shillong while occasionally visiting Shella. The Report further states that 200 persons participated in a long interaction with the members of HPC. The Report further states that in fact the villagers became very upset in the apprehension of Lafarge not being allowed to mine on their community land. As stated above, even according to the letter dated 11-5-2007, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests states that though the site falls in the forest as pointed out by Shri Khazan Singh, the Chief Conservator of Forests (C) vide letter dated 1-6-2006, still it is not the fault of Lafarge." 12. In the context of various issues regarding welfare of the villagers, mining of area, it shall be relevant to quote paras 34, 115 and 116 of the said judgment:- "34. In the context of various issues regarding welfare of the villagers, mining of area, it shall be relevant to quote paras 34, 115 and 116 of the said judgment:- "34. At the same time the report states that the project is positive and beneficial to the residents of Nongtrai Village due to huge amount of cash going to the village durbar and reaching the individual household improving the financial health of the population of two villages i.e. Nongtrai and Shella. According to the report, interaction took place between the High-Powered Committee constituted by MoEF and the locals. That villagers of Shella are not having any problems from Lafarge and that the people are very satisfied with the mining company which has provided health care facilities, drinking water facilities, employment, schools, etc. According to the report, Lafarge has been contributing for the benefit of the village as well as for all the villagers by way of payment of rent for the use of the community land as well as towards the price of limestone exported to Bangladesh. The figures of such payments are also indicated in the report. Further, the report states that mining is not having any adverse effect on the human life. 115. Before concluding, we would like to refer to our order dated 12-4-2010 which recites agreed conditions between the parties which conditions are imposed by this Court in addition to the condition laid down by MoEF. These agreed conditions incorporated in our order dated 12-4-2010 are in terms of our judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (87)/SC/0596/2005 : (2006) 1 SCC 1 with regard to commercial exploitability which even according to SAC was not considered by MoEF at the time of granting revised environmental clearance on 19-4-2010 or at the time of granting forest clearance on 22-4-2010. 116. We reproduce our order dated 12.4.2010, which reads as under: "Heard both sides. Learned Attorney General for India stated that the Ministry of Environment & Forests will take a decision under the Forest Conservation Act and shall consider granting permission subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 55 crores towards five times of the normal NPV (as recommended by the CEC) with interest @ 9% per annum from 1-4-2007, till the date of payment. The applicant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 55 crores towards five times of the normal NPV (as recommended by the CEC) with interest @ 9% per annum from 1-4-2007, till the date of payment. Such payment shall be made in totality in one instalment within 4 weeks from the date of the order. 2. An SPV shall be set up under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Meghalaya with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Meghalaya, Tribal Secretary, Meghalaya, Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, MoEF at Shillong and one reputed NGO (to be nominated by MoEF) as Members. The SPV will be set up within 4 weeks. 3. The User Agency will deposit with the SPV a sum of Rs. 90/- per tonne of the limestone mined from the date on which mining commenced within 4 weeks of the SPV being constituted. 4. The SPV shall follow the principles and procedure presently applied for utilization of CAMPA money. The account will be audited by the Accountant General, Meghalaya. The money will be kept in an interest bearing account with a Nationalized Bank. The Accountant General and the SPV shall file an Annual Report before this Hon'ble Court detailing all the work done by it in relation to the welfare projects mandated upon it including the development of health, education, economy, irrigation and agriculture in the project area of 50 kms solely for the local community and welfare of Tribals. 5. The User Agency will comply with all the conditions imposed on it earlier as well as further recommendations made by the Committee constituted by MoEF under the order dated 30-3-2010, including, in particular, the following: (a) It shall prepare a detailed Catchment Area Treatment Plan. (b) It shall explore the use of surface miner technology. (c) It shall monitor ambient area quality as per New National Ambient Air Quality Standards. (d) It shall take steps to construct a Sewage Treatment Plant and Effluent Treatment Plant. (e) It shall discontinue any agreement for procuring limestone on the basis of disorganized and unscientific and ecologically unsustainable mining in the area. (f) It shall prepare a comprehensive forest rehabilitation and conservation plan covering the project as well as the surrounding area. (g) It shall prepare a comprehensive Biodiversity Management Plan to mitigate the possible impacts of mining on the surrounding forest and wildlife. (f) It shall prepare a comprehensive forest rehabilitation and conservation plan covering the project as well as the surrounding area. (g) It shall prepare a comprehensive Biodiversity Management Plan to mitigate the possible impacts of mining on the surrounding forest and wildlife. (h) It shall maintain a strip of at least 100 meter of forest area on the boundary of mining area as a green belt. 6. MoEF shall take a final decision under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for the revised environmental clearance for diversion of 116 ha of forest land, taking into consideration all the conditions stipulated hereinabove and it may impose such further conditions as it may deem proper. List on 26-4-2010 at 2.00 p.m." 13. In the written submissions of respondents No. 1 to 5 (State), the principal contentions of the petitioner have been quoted. Then, it has been stated:- (a) that the Government of India has been making concerted efforts for industrial development of North Eastern Region including Meghalaya which is well endowed with natural resources, mineral deposits, agro-horticultural resources and hydro electric potential as it has lagged behind in industrial development. (b) The respondent No. 7-Lum-Mawshun Minerals Private Limited (LMMPL) had submitted a proposal for setting up of limestone mining project in Nongtrai area of East Khasi Hills District which was cleared. The LMMPL jointly with land owners submitted an application under Section 3 of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 for transfer of some limestone bearing and other lands for their said limestone mining project and for construction of the elevated belt conveyor. The Government of Meghalaya accorded permission for transfer of the following lands vide Notification No. RDS. 25/99/11 dated 26.02.2002:- "100 Hect. of land in Elaka Nongtrai From the village Dorbar of U Sandi Nongtrai to LMMPL for limestone mining. 30 Hect. of land in Elaka Shella From various landowners to LMMPL for construction of a Continuous Elevated Belt conveyor System (c) Subsequently, on another application for transfer of land filed jointly by the landowners and LMMPL, permission was accorded vide Revenue Department letter No. RDS. 25/99/55 dated 03.06.2002 for transfer of the following lands: 7.6 Hect. 30 Hect. of land in Elaka Shella From various landowners to LMMPL for construction of a Continuous Elevated Belt conveyor System (c) Subsequently, on another application for transfer of land filed jointly by the landowners and LMMPL, permission was accorded vide Revenue Department letter No. RDS. 25/99/55 dated 03.06.2002 for transfer of the following lands: 7.6 Hect. of land in Elaka Nongtrai From the village Durbar of U Sandi Nongtrai to LMMPL for construction/installation of limestone crusher (d) Subsequently, on another application for transfer of land filed jointly by LMMPL and the landowners, permission was accorded vide Revenue Department letter No. RDS. 25/99/Pt/49 dated 18th November 2002 for transfer of the following lands:- 13 Hect. of land in Mawiong Shella From various landowners to LMMPL for undertaking shale/siltstone mining operations (e) As permission was accorded under Section 4(1) of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 for transfer of a total of 150.6 Hect. of land in favour of LMMPL. (f) An application was submitted by Lum Mawshun Minerals Pvt. Ltd. for grant of sanction for transfer of the aforesaid 150.6 hectares of land from Lum Mawshun Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (LMMPL) to Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. (LUMPL) respondent No. 8. The State Government considered the said application and after being satisfied about the same, in exercise of powers under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, vide Revenue Department letter No. RDS. 25/99/Pt-1/177 dated 17th September, 2004 accorded permission for transfer of a total of 150.6 hectares of land at Shella/Nongtrai from LMMPL to LUMPL. 14. The State Government considered the said application and after being satisfied about the same, in exercise of powers under Sec. 4(1) of the Act, vide Revenue Department letter No. RDS. 25/99/Pt-1/177 dated 17th September, 2004 accorded permission for transfer of a total of 150.6 hectares of land at Shella/Nongtrai from LMMPL to LUMPL. 14. It shall be relevant to quote sub-para (m) (n) (o) of para 4 of the written submission of respondents No. 1 to 5:- "(m) The limestone mining project of LUMPL is in operation since the year 2006-2007 and till date has yielded the following revenue to the State exchequer by way of royalty, mineral cess and dead rent on mining lease: Year Royalty/Rent Mineral Cess Dead Rent Grand Total 1 2 3 4 5 2005-06 NIL NIL 40,000 40,000 2006-07 1,27,22,760 14,13,640 NIL 1,41,36,400 2007-08 1,44,31,500 16,03,500 NIL 1,60,35,000 2008-09 6,73,94,385 74,88,265 NIL 7,48,82,650 2009-10 10,50,35,346 3,85,18,000 NIL 14,35,53,346 2010-11 3,01,37,499 95,67,460 NIL 3,97,04,959 2011-12 5,42,17,737 1,72,11,980 50,000 7,14,79,717 2012-13 12,60,00,000 4,00,00,000 NIL 16,60,00,000 2013-14 12,40,39,188 3,93,77,520 NIL 16,34,16,708 2014-15 13,83,47,219 4,00,00,000 NIL 17,83,47,219 2015-16 15,99,96,160 7,18,51,160 NIL 23,18,47,320 2016-17 16,94,17,440 11,96,96,120 NIL 28,91,13,560 2017-18 18,66,31,280 13,99,73,460 NIL 32,66,04,740 GRAND TOTAL 1,18,83,70,514 52,67,01,105 90,000 1,71,51,61,619 (n) Apart from contributing a substantial amount of revenue to the State, the project of the respondent No. 8 is also contributing to the economy and the livelihood of the local people in the project sites by way of creating additional direct and indirect employment opportunities, provision of education, skill-development and various measures in terms of the CSR activities carried out by the respondent No. 8. Various community development activities in the field of health, education, infrastructure development, income-generation programmes like skill training fully dedicated for the benefits of the local residents are being undertaken by the respondent No. 8. The project is also contributing a substantial amount of revenue for Nongtrai Village Durbar by way of annual lease rent of the land which at present stands about Rs. 2.6 crore per annum for the mining area, which is a major source of earning/revenue for people of Nongtrai village. (o) Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in order dated 12.04.2010, a Special Purpose Vehicle under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya in the form of a society registered under the Societies' Registration Act, has been created. (o) Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in order dated 12.04.2010, a Special Purpose Vehicle under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya in the form of a society registered under the Societies' Registration Act, has been created. The respondent No. 8 has, pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, till 31.07.2018 deposited a sum of Rs. 168 crores in the account of the said SPV and the said amount has further accrued interest on it. The said SPV is mandated to plan and execute welfare projects including the development of health, education, economy, irrigation and agriculture in the project area of 50 Kms. Thus by way of deposit of this money, the respondent No. 8 is also contributing to welfare projects in the project area for development of health, education, economy, irrigation and agriculture etc." 15. It is further stated that the transfer of land was permitted after following due process of law under the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971. It is also stated that the project of respondent No. 8 has started contributing substantially to the State exchequer. In this connection sub-para (c) of para 5 of the written submission is advantageous to be quoted:- "(c) The project of the respondent No. 8 is contributing substantially to the State exchequer by way of Royalty on Limestone, Mineral Cess and Dead Rent and also by way of deposits to SPV for welfare projects in the project area for development of health, education, economy, irrigation and agriculture etc. The limestone mining project of LUMPL is in operation since the year 2006-2007 and in its 11 years of operation till now has contributed to the State exchequer the following amounts by way of Royalty, Mineral Cess and Dead Rent: Particulars Period Amount Royalty/Rent 2006-07 to 2017-18 1,18,83,70,514/- Mineral Cess 2006-07 to 2017-18 52,67,01,105/- Dead Rent 2006-07 to 2017-18 90,000/- Total 1,71,51,61,619 Apart from the above, the limestone mining project of LUMPL has deposited the following amount with the SPV created under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for welfare projects in the project area for development of health, education, economy, irrigation and agriculture etc. Particulars Period Amount Deposit with SPV 2006-07 to 2017-18 168 Crore Interest accrued on the above 2006-07 to 2017-18 About 34 Crore As such the contention of the petitioner that - the project of the respondent No. 8 has caused deprivation of the Union of India and the State of Meghalaya of taxes and revenues - is also factually incorrect." 16. Sub-para (e) of said para 5 is also relevant to be quoted:- "(e) The PIL petitioner (Shella Action Committee) is a busy-body and a meddlesome interloper and the instant PIL petition filed by Shella Action Committee purporting to agitate the grievances of the so-called aggrieved landowners is misconceived one and not maintainable when the said so-called aggrieved landowners are satisfied and are in no way aggrieved and have chosen not to approach the Court of law. As stated above, permission under the Act was granted and thereafter the lands were initially transferred from various landowners to LLMPL as follows:- From Village Durbar of U Sandi Nongtrai to LLMPL 100 Hectares From individual landowners of Shella to LMMPL 30 Hectares From Village Durbar of U Sandi Nongtrai to LMMPL 7.6 Hectares From individuals landowners of Mawing Shella to LMMPL 13 Hectares The landowner namely Village Durbar of U Sandi Nongtrai from whom land measuring 107.6 Hectares (100+7.6 Hectares) was transferred, is fully satisfied with the permission for transfer of land and is in no way aggrieved and have chosen not to approach the Court of law. Similarly, the land owners in Shella from whom 30 Hectares of land was transferred are fully satisfied with the permission for transfer of land and are in no way aggrieved and have chosen not to approach the Court of law or the Government of Meghalaya. The other land-owners of Shella from whom 13 Hectares of land was transferred are also fully satisfied and are in no way aggrieved and have chosen not to approach the Court of law. As such, when the real landowners, whose lands have been transferred are satisfied and are not aggrieved, the instant PIL filed by the Shella Action Committee is a misconceived one and not maintainable. No land has been taken for the project in Tynynger village as claimed in the PIL. As such, when the real landowners, whose lands have been transferred are satisfied and are not aggrieved, the instant PIL filed by the Shella Action Committee is a misconceived one and not maintainable. No land has been taken for the project in Tynynger village as claimed in the PIL. If there is any other land-owner who claim right, interest and title over any land and feels that his land has been transferred but he had not been paid the lease rent or the sale amount by the respondent No. 7 or 8, this will tantamount to a title dispute between the rival land-owners and the same cannot be decided by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of PIL jurisdiction. Such title disputes can only be decided by the competent civil courts." 17. Finally, it has been stated that the PIL has been filed with mala fide intention same may be dismissed. 18. The respondents No. 7 and 8 in their written submissions have made it clear as to how their mining activities have been beneficial to the people of the area. It is also been made clear as to what has been contributed by the respondents No. 7 to 9 and as to how the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. [ (2011) 7 SCC 338 ] in para 116 as quoted hereinabove have been complied with. The respondents No. 7 and 8 have stated that their contributions towards upliftment of the standard of living of the people of the area have been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment at paras 34, 96, 112 and 117. The detail of the benefits of the project as highlighted in the written submission are as under:- "The company respondent is providing health care facilities, drinking water facilities, employment for local youth, construction of village roads, and employment for school teachers, scholarship programmes for children, etc. and this fact is reflected in the Report of the High Power Committee (HPC) headed by Shri B.N. Jha, Regional Chief Conservator of Forest (C) and referred to by the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 34 of its judgment, supra." 19. and this fact is reflected in the Report of the High Power Committee (HPC) headed by Shri B.N. Jha, Regional Chief Conservator of Forest (C) and referred to by the Hon'ble Apex Court at para 34 of its judgment, supra." 19. Summary of the financial benefits from the inception of the project upto 31.07.2018 is as under:- "The respondent company begs to adduce below and upto date brief summary of the financial benefits accruing to the residents of Shella and Nongtrai villages. The upto date figures from the inception of the project upto July 31, 2018 are provided in the table below:- SL NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT PAID IN INR 1 Total payments made to the village Durbar of Nongtrai under an Agreement. Rs.23,74,31,345/- (Rupees Twenty Three Crore Seventy Four Lakh Thirty One Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Five only. (The amount is distributed among the residents of Nongtrai village 2 Payments made to the Village Dorbar of Shella under an Agreement Rs. 8,98,75,000/- (Rupees Eight Crore Ninety Eight Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) only. (This amount is distributed to the residents of Shella Village Total Rs. 32,73,06,345/- In addition to the above, the respondent company has spent over Rs. 11,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Crores) towards CSR activities around the project area." 20. Deposits to exchequer, payments and contributions are as under:- "The upto date figures as of July 31, 2018 are provided as hereunder:- SL. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT PAID IN INR 1. Royalty & mineral Cess to the Govt. of Meghalaya. (w.e.f. April 2006 till date) Rs.171,50,71,619/- (Rupees One Hundred Seventy One Crores Fifty Lakh Seventy One Thousand Six Hundred and Nineteen) Only 2. Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) vide Apex court order and Direction dated 12.4.2010 [para 116 in (2011) 7 SCC 338 ] Rs.168,87,16,350/- (Rupees One Hundred Sixty Eight Crores Eighty Seven Lakh Sixteen Thousand Three Hundred Fifty) Only 3. Contribution to the District Mineral Foundation Rs. 12,16,13,616/- (Rupees Twelve Crore Sixteen Lakh Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen) only. 4. Export Revenue in term of Export Sales accruing to Govt. of India USD 27,23,22,740 (US Dollar Twenty Seven Crores Twenty Three Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Forty) only Equivalent to Rs.1599,85,33,016/- (Rupees one Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Nine Crores Eighty Five Lakh Thirty Three Thousand and Sixteen) only Total Rs1952,39,34,601/- Other payments The respondent company has been granted Forest Clearance and Environmental Clearance. of India USD 27,23,22,740 (US Dollar Twenty Seven Crores Twenty Three Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Forty) only Equivalent to Rs.1599,85,33,016/- (Rupees one Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Nine Crores Eighty Five Lakh Thirty Three Thousand and Sixteen) only Total Rs1952,39,34,601/- Other payments The respondent company has been granted Forest Clearance and Environmental Clearance. In terms of the clearance and the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following amounts contributed for afforestation and regeneration activities: (i) Total Amount paid for Compensatory Afforestation-Rs. 2,39,10,767/- (Rupees Two Crores, Thirty Nine Lakh Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Seven) only. (ii) Total Amount for Net Present Value (NPV) from April 2007 to July 2010 along with interest - Rs. 72,66,48,839/- (Rupees Seventy Two Crores Sixty Six Lakh Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Nine) only. (iii) Amount for Biodiversity Conservation Plan - Rs. 4,39,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crore Thirty Nine Lakh) only. Amount for Catchment Area Treatment Plan - Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh) only." 21. The contributions on health sector, tax sector, exchequer sector and revenue as detailed hereinabove, is a glaring example of great contributions made by respondents No. 7 and 8. Valid mining operation through them has proved to be boon for the economy of not only the inhabitants of the area but for the State as a whole. 22. Respondent No. 7 has faced lot of litigations, firstly, Shella Action Committee had projected before the Hon'ble Supreme Court various objections including environmental clearance and forest land etc., unsuccessfully as is clear from para 121 of the judgment rendered in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. quoted hereinabove. 23. A drowning man catches at a straw is a proverb applicable to the petitioner because after failing on every ground they have raised the issue of land title. They are nobody to raise such an issue, their intentions stand exposed by the fact that during pendency of this matter from 2007 till date, they have not been able to produce single individual with an affidavit to claim that his land has been transferred illegally. No one has come forward to claim title adverse to those land owners who have transferred their land (sold or leased out) in favour of the respondent No. 7. 24. No one has come forward to claim title adverse to those land owners who have transferred their land (sold or leased out) in favour of the respondent No. 7. 24. The State authorities (respondents No. 1 to 5) in their written submission have made it clear that while granting permission for transfer of land the provisions of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 were strictly followed. 25. We after bestowing thoughtful consideration to the entire gamut of the matter have reached to an inescapable conclusion that in fact the petitioner has filed the petition (PIL) without any substantial cause, they may be the residents of village Shella but are stated to have been residing in Shillong and operating from there to the disadvantage of the people of the village Shella. 26. Industrial growth linked with development of North East, in particular, in this case State of Meghalaya, mining operation undertaken by the respondents No. 7 to 9 as referred to hereinabove has proved fruitful for the economic growth and welfare of the people of the area. Mining operation by respondents No. 7 to 9 has generated lot of revenue and various measures have been taken for well being and welfare of the area. The petitioner have not been able to take exception to the positive stand taken by the respondents No. 7 and 8 regarding payment of tax, valid transaction and economic growth. As against the petitioner, the respondent (State) has supported the mining operation, transfer of land and other activities of the respondents No. 7 to 9. 27. Bona fide's of the petitioner is not free from blame, he has unnecessary dragged the respondents into unwanted litigation with disastrous consequence. Public Interest Litigation has to be for the betterment, shall not be aimed at destruction or harassment. We have found this petition (PIL) to be totally without any merit and tainted with ill design. 28. Negative approach is always detrimental to the progress, development and prosperity. Negativity at times can be catastrophic. 29. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not permissible for encouraging negativity, impacting the progress and welfare. The petitioner has filed the instant petition (PIL) projecting to be the well wishers of tribal, so protecting and safeguarding the rights of the poor, illiterate and indigenous people of Shella village. Negativity at times can be catastrophic. 29. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not permissible for encouraging negativity, impacting the progress and welfare. The petitioner has filed the instant petition (PIL) projecting to be the well wishers of tribal, so protecting and safeguarding the rights of the poor, illiterate and indigenous people of Shella village. On final analysis, spirit of the PIL is found with lot of negativity aimed at jeopardizing the progress of the tribal of village Shella. 30. In the upshot, petition deserve dismissal as such is dismissed with costs, quantified at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) to be deposited by the petitioner within one month in the relief welfare fund maintained by the High Court of Meghalaya presently for flood sufferers of the State of Kerala. 31. Dismissal of this PIL petition shall be without prejudice to any suit if pending or instituted, regarding title of the land, transferred to respondents No. 7, 8 and 9.