State of Meghalaya vs All Dimasa Students Union, Dima-Hasao District Committee & Ors.

Land Laws: Land tenure system – Nature of land tenure in the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – In the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either privately or community owned in which State does not claim any right – The, private owners of the land as well as community owners have both the surface right as well as sub-soil right – Thus, the tribals owned the land and also owned the minerals – Constitution of India – Art.244, sub-clause (2) – Mines and Minerals. Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: Applicability of the provisions of Act of 1957 in Tribal areas within the State of Meghalaya, included in Schedule VI of the Constitution – Schedule VI of the Constitution is a provision for Administration DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

of Tribal areas in the State of Meghalaya – There is nothing in Schedule VI which may indicate about the inapplicability of Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – In the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended 31st March, 2013 also it is clearly stated that Act, 1957 is fully applicable for regulation of mines and regulation of minerals in the State of Meghalaya – Moreover, there was no notification issued by the President under Para 12A(b) of Schedule VI which empowers the President, with respect to any Act of Parliament, by notification, to direct that it shall not apply to an autonomous district or an autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply to such district or region or any part thereof subject to such exceptions or modifications as he may specify in the notification – Thus, there is nothing in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which may indicate about the inapplicability of Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – Constitution of India – Schedule VI, Para 12A sub-clause (b) – Mines Act, 1952.

Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: Legislative competence of State of Meghalaya to frame Mining Policy – Directions of NGT to the State of Meghalaya to frame policy – Propriety of – Held: Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012 and Draft Guidelines of coal mining activities in the State framed by Mining and Geology Department of the Government – Policy of 2012 contemplated regulatory regime for mining lease by the State – The Guidelines mentioned about the unregulated and unscientific mining being carried out in the State of Meghalaya – There can be no dispute to the preposition that in view of MMDR Act, 1957, the legislative competence of State of Meghalaya under Entry 23 List II stood denuded – However, under MMDR Act, 1957 as well as the MC Rules, 1960, several statutory obligations/jurisdictions have been conferred on the State of Meghalaya – When under a Parliamentary enactment, State has been given some statutory obligations, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the State to frame policy to give effect to or implement the jurisdictions conferred on the State by Parliamentary enactments – It is true that Mining Policy to be framed by the State has to confine to the jurisdiction conferred on it as per the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder – Several other aspects relating to mining like, rehabilitation, reclamation and restoration have to be effectively implemented by the State for which also, it may be required to frame a policy – Policy of 2012 was already framed by the State of Meghalaya, even before directions were issued by the NGT – In pursuance of NGT directions, it was draft guidelines of 2015, which were prepared by State of Meghalaya – Thus, direction of NGT to declare Mining Policy by the State of Meghalaya cannot be said to be without jurisdiction – However, the State in its Mining Policy can only include those areas where it has jurisdiction under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder – Constitution of India – Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: s.4(1) – Whether the statute requires obtaining lease for winning the minerals in so far as mining of coal from privately owned land/community owned land are concerned – Held: For carrying out mining operations in privately owned land in hills districts of Meghalaya, obtaining a mining lease is a statutory requirement under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules, 1960 – Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: Whether the power to allot land for mining purposes is vested in Autonomous District Councils – Held: The District Council does not have any power to make any law with regard to grant of mining lease – The mining leases for winning the major minerals has to be granted in accordance with 1957 Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Khasi Hills District (Trading by Non Tribals) Regulation, 1954 – United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and Control of Forest) Rules, 1960 – Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Trading by Non Tribals) Rules, 1959,.

Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: Whether the order of NGT dated 17.04.2014 directing for complete ban on mining is unsustainable – Held: The use of natural resources plays major role in carrying out development – A fine balance has to be maintained in utilisation of natural resources and its conservation and preservation – By order of NGT dated 17.04.2014, the Rat hole mining/illegal mining was prohibited throughout the State of Meghalaya – In OA No.73 of 2014 in which said order was DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

passed, sufficient materials were on record including experts report which proved that illegal coal mining in the State of Meghalaya was degrading the environment – NGT after considering all pleas and materials affirmed order dated 17.04.2014 and refused to withdraw the ban – No error in the order of NGT reaffirming its ban order.

Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the State of Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to be vacated/modified in the interest of State and Tribals – Held: Tribals are the owners of the land who carry on mining of coal in their land by which they earn their substantial livelihood – In event mining operations are undertaken by the tribals or other owners of hills districts of Meghalaya in accordance with mining lease obtained from the State of Meghalaya as per 1957 Act and Rules, 1960, the ban order dated 17.04.2014 of NGT shall not come in its way of carrying mining operations – The ban order is for the illegal coal mining which was rampant in the State of Meghalaya and the ban order cannot be extended to valid and legal mining as per 1957 Act and 1960 Rules – Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter V – Procedure for grant of mining lease and authority/person, who is competent to grant such lease – Held: As per the statutory provisions contained in Rules, 1960, especially Chapter V, a mining lease for minerals, which belongs to a private owner or a community owner, it is not the State Government, which is entitled to receive any application or grant any mining lease, but it is the private owner or community owner, who is entitled to grant a lease for mining minerals owned by them.

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter IV and Chapter V – Distinction between – Chapter IV deals with grant of mining leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government and Chapter V deals with procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person other than the Government – Procedure and manner of applying for mining lease and grant of lease as contained in Chapter IV is not made applicable to the procedure as given in Chapter V except that by virtue of r.45(i) certain conditions of mining lease as contained in r.27 under Chapter IV are made applicable for mining lease under Chapter V.

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter V – Whether the State of Meghalaya has any statutory control over the mining of coal from privately owned/community owned land in Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – Held: State of Meghalaya has jurisdiction and power to ensure that no mining of coal should take place except when a mining lease is granted under the Rules, 1960 – The statutory scheme delineated by s.13(2)(f) and the Rules, 1960 clearly contemplate grant of mining lease, with regard to both the categories of land, i.e., land in which minerals vest in the Government, and the land in which minerals vest in a person other than the Government – Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957 – s.13(2)(f).

Mines and Minerals: Jurisdiction of NGT – Constitution of committee – Whether NGT had any jurisdiction to constitute committees to submit reports, to implement the orders of NGT, to monitor storage/transportation; of minerals and to prepare action plan for restoration of environment and whether the NGT committed error in directing for constitution of fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund – Held: There is no lack of jurisdiction in the NGT to direct for appointment of committee or to obtain a report from a committee – A Fund has been constituted by NGT, namely, “Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund” – NGT could have passed any order or direction to secure ends of justice which power especially conferred by Rule

24 – Direction to constitute Fund is thus also saved under such power – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Mines and Minerals: Judicial powers of NGT – Whether NGT by constituting Committees has delegated essential judicial powers to the Committees – Held: The various instances where the NGT directed for report or investigation and submission of report by committees were with the object of ensuring the implementation of the orders passed by it and to decide the environmental issues raised before it – In no manner, constitution of committee can be said to be DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

delegation of essential judicial powers of the NGT to the committee – The Katakey committee was constituted by NGT on 31.08.2018 – The constitution of the committee and its functions entrusted were with the object to implement the orders passed by NGT – For the restoration of environment, NGT by its order dated 31.08.2018 has directed the committee to submit its action plan and reports by e-mail – NGT, thus, had kept complete control on all steps which were required to be taken by the committee and issued directions from time to time – Thus, the submission that the essential judicial powers of the NGT had been delegated to the committee is not tenable – The matter being pending before NGT of acts of the committee are under direct control of NGT and if the committee oversteps in any direction the same can very well be corrected by NGT on the matter being brought before it – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

Mines and Minerals: Whether constitution of the committee encroaches the constitutional scheme of the Tribal areas under Art.244(2) and Art.275(1) and Schedule VI of the Constitution – Para 3 of the Schedule VI enumerates the powers of the District Council and Regional Council to make laws – The powers of the District and Regional Councils are enumerated under Para 3 – In the directions of NGT to constitute committee for transportation of extracted minerals or for preparing time bound action to deal with the restoration of environment and to ensure its implementation, there is no interference in the powers of the District or Regional Councils – Action plan for restoration of environment is consequence of NGT finding out that an unregulated coal mining has damaged environment and has caused the pollution including water pollution – It is not case of the appellant that District and Regional Councils have framed any law for restoration of environment which is being breached by the committee or its acts – The District and Regional Councils are free to exercise all their powers and the committee constituted by NGT is only concerned with the Environmental degradation and illegal coal mining – The committees’ report or direction of NGT in no manner encroaches upon the administration of Tribal areas by the District and Regional Councils – Constitution of India – Arts.244(2), 275(1).

Mines and Minerals: Whether direction to deposit Rs.100/crores by the State of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019 of NGT is sustainable – NGT by its order dated 04.01.2019 had directed the State of Meghalaya to deposit an amount of Rs.100 Crores with the Central Pollution Control Board, which was to be spent for restoration of environment – The State of Meghalaya aggrieved by this direction filed appeal – Held: The amount, which has been directed by NGT to be deposited by State of Meghalaya is neither a penalty nor a fine imposed on the State – The amount has been directed to be deposited for carrying out steps regarding restoration of environment – The said amount cannot be said to be amount of damages to be paid by the State – State of Meghalaya has very limited source of revenue and putting an extra burden on the State of Meghalaya to make payment of Rs.100 Crores from its own financial resources and budgetary amount may cause great hardship to the State of Meghalaya – In the ends of justice, the direction of NGT dated 04.01.2019 is modified to the extent that State is permitted to transfer an amount of Rs.100 Crores from the amount lying in the MEPRF to the Central Pollution Control Board – The Central Pollution Control Board shall utilise the amount of Rs.100 Crores only for restoration of the environment.

Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: ss.4(1), 21 – Coal – Vesting in Government – Whether NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016 that after 15.05.2016, all remaining coal shall vest in the State of Meghalaya is sustainable – By order dated 31.03.2016, NGT had permitted transportation of coal till 15.5.2016 under terms and conditions as enumerated therein and further contemplated that no coal in any form whatsoever shall be permitted to be transported after 15.05.2016 on which date the entire remaining coal shall vest in the State Government and shall be disposed of in accordance with law – Propriety of NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016 – Held: Coal mining was illegally going on in the Hills District of State of Meghalaya without there being any mining lease – The entire mining was, thus, is clear in contravention of s.4(1) of Act, 1957 which attracted penalties under s.21 – The present is not a case where any kind of penalty was imposed on the miners except that the amount of royalty as payable on mining of coal was collected by the State as penalty – State Government has power under s.21(5) DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

to recover from such person the minerals so raised, or, where such material has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, but it is for State Government to exercise its power under s.21(5) by way of penalty – The NGT did not give any reason as to how coal shall automatically vest in the State – The right of recovery of mineral as contemplated under s.21(5) would not amount to say that proprietary right of owner of the minerals is lost rather State under s.21(5) exercises its power to recover the mineral which has been raised without any lawful authority – Thus, coal extracted and lying in open after 15.05.2016 was not automatically vested in the State and the owner of the coal or the person who has mined the coal shall have the proprietary right in the mineral which shall not be lost.

Mines and Minerals: Coal – Whether assessed and unassessed coal which has already been extracted and lying in different Districts of Meghalaya be permitted to be transported – Mechanism to be adopted for disposal of such coal – Held: Coal being major mineral and useful for different industries and projects, appropriate disposal of extracted coal is of a paramount importance – Entire extracted coal lying at various places is directed to be taken over by Coal India Ltd, a Government of India unit, who may dispose of the same as per its normal method of disposal – For all extracted coal lying at different places, it is the State, which is the receiver-cum-custodian of the coal – The State having carried out the assessment of the coal lying in the said four districts including the details of the quantities and the details of owners being available with it, it may ensure that the entire coal are handed over to the Coal India Ltd., as per the mode and manner to be formulated by Katakey Committee, in consultation with officers of the Coal India Ltd. and State of Meghalaya – Commissioner and Secretary of the State in the Department of Mining and Geology alongwith the officers of Coal India Ltd. are directed to deliberate with the Katakey committee to finalise a comprehensive plan for transportation and handing over of the coal to Coal India Ltd. for disposal/auction as per rules of Coal India Ltd. – It is for the Coal India Ltd. to decide as to venue, where they shall receive the coal and finalise the process of disposal and auction of the coal – It shall be the duty of the State of Meghalaya and its officers especially Deputy Commissioner of the area concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal, name of the owner and place from where it is collected – State of Meghalaya shall be entitled to royalty and payment towards MERP Fund as well as taxes out of the price of the coal – The Coal India Ltd. after taking its expenses for transportation with 10% of price of the coal shall remit the entire amount to the State and State after deducting the royalty and payment to the MERP Fund and taxes would pay back the balance of the amount to the owner – The coal, which has been seized by the State in illegal transportation or illegal mining for which different cases have been registered by the State shall be dealt by the State in accordance with s.21 of the Act, 1957 and on being satisfied, the State can take a decision to recover the entire quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful authority and the said cases has to be separately dealt with in accordance with law – All I.A.s filed by different applicants seeking order of transportation of the different quantities disposed of – The Katakey committee in consultation with State of Meghalaya and officers of Coal India Ltd. would finalise appropriate mode and manner to affect the transport and disposal of the coal in the above manner. Mines Act, 1952: Mines Act, 1952 contains various provisions regarding inspection of mining operation and management of mines – The provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 are mandatory to be followed before working a mine – The regulations namely Coal Mines Regulations, 2017 also contains several regulatory provisions which need to be followed while working a mine by a mining lease holder – The enforcement of Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations, 2017 have to be ensured by the State in the public interest. Mines and Minerals: Coal mining in the Hills Districts of the State of Meghalaya – As per statutory regime brought in force by notification dated 15.01.2016 issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, environmental clearance is required for a project of coal for mining of any extent of area – While implementing statutory regime for carrying mining operations in the Hills Districts of the State of Meghalaya, the State of Meghalaya has to ensure compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but Mines Act, 1952 as well as Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Judicial Appreciation: Committee – Work appreciated – The Katakey committee and its various members and participants have done a commendable job in studying and examining various aspects of environment in the State of Meghalaya and several valuable suggestions have been given by the committee, which are also being implemented to mitigate the suffering of the citizens consequent to the illegal coal mined.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: Whether orders passed by the National Green Tribunal are without jurisdiction being beyond the purview of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010?

1. The present is not a case of mere allegation of applicant of environmental degradation by illegal and unregulated coal mining rather there were materials on the record including the report of the experts, the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board published in the month of September, 1992, the report of Katakey committee appointed by the Tribunal where environmental degradation of water, air and surface of the land was proved. Hence, there was sufficient allegation regarding substantial questions relating to environment and violation of enactments in Schedule I. There were reports of the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board before the State Government pointing out environmental degradation and the Tribunal having taken up the issue, the submission on behalf of the State that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction is not expected from the State Government who is under constitutional obligation to ensure clean environment to all its citizens. In cases pertaining to environmental matter the State has to act as facilitator and not as obstructionist. The submission for the State that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 in entertaining O.A.No.73 of 2014 is rejected. [Paras 67, 68, 72] [373-E-H; 376-A]

Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari and Others (2018) 11 SCC 734 : [2017] 12 SCR 956 – distinguished.

Whether provisions of Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957 are applicable in Tribal areas within the State of Meghalaya, included in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution?

2.1 By the North-Eastern Area Reorganisation Act, 1971, the State of Meghalaya was formed as independent full-fledged State. After the enforcement of the Constitution, the area, now comprised in the State of Meghalaya, was included in the State of Assam, the Administration and control of which area was as per Article 244 of the Constitution of India read with Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. In so far as the land tenure in the Hills Districts of Meghalaya, there is no substantial change after the advent of the Constitution. There was no payment system of land revenue before the advent of the Constitution in the Hills Districts of Meghalaya. [Para 73] [376-C-E]

2.2 The lands in the Khasi Hills District of Meghalaya come under two divisions Ri Raid and Ri Kynti. Ri raid lands are community lands which are set apart for the benefit and use of entire community. Ri kynti lands are privately owned lands which were also owned by community as well as by individuals. The owner of the re kynti land is an absolute proprietor. The tenure system in Jaintia Hills classified into two types of lands, namely, Hali / irrigated land and High land. Hali lands are further categorised in Raj land, service land, village puja land and private land. Proprietary right does not vest in the State in respect to majority of lands which are either privately owned or owned by the Tribal community. No system of payment of land revenue is prevalent in the Hills District of Meghalaya except lands which belong to State. In the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either privately or community owned in which State does not claim any right. Thus, private owners of the land as well as community owners have both the surface right as well as sub-soil right. Tribals owned the land and also owned the minerals, which is an inescapable conclusion. [Paras 73, 75] [376-E-G; 378-E-F] Thressiamma Jacob and Others v. Geologist,

Department of Mining and Geology and Others (2013)

9 SCC 725 : [2013] 7 SCR 863 – referred to.

DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Raja Anand Brahma Shah v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others AIR 1967 SC 1081 : [1967] SCR 373 – followed.

2.3 Part X of the Constitution separately deals with Scheduled and Tribal areas. Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya were treated to be Tribal area and were to be governed by Article 244 sub-clause (2) read with Schedule VI. Sixth Schedule of the Constitution contains ‘Provisions as to the Administration of Tribal Areas in the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram’. Paragraph 20 of Sixth Schedule refers to Tribal areas and Part II of which consists of Khasi Hills District, Jaintia Hills District and Garo Hills District which have been referred as Autonomous Districts. [Paras 76, 77, 78] [378-G-H; 379-C]

2.4 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 has been enacted to provide for development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union. The Act came into effect w.e.f. 01.06.1958. Para 12A sub-clause

(b) Schedule VI of the Constitution empowers that the President may, with respect to any Act of Parliament, by notification, direct that it shall not apply to an autonomous district or an autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply to such district or region or any part thereof subject to such exceptions or modifications as he may specify in the notification. No notification has been issued by the President under Para 12A(b), although, the said Para 12A(b) is in the Constitution with effect from 21.1.1972. Thus, there is nothing in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which may indicate about the inapplicability of Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya. The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended 31st March, 2013 clearly stated that Act, 1957 is fully applicable for regulation of mines and regulation of minerals in the State of Meghalaya. [Paras 81 82, 83] [381-G-H; 382-C-E; 383-D]

2.5 Clause 10 of the Mehghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012 provides for “Regulatory Framework for Mine Development and Mining”. Sub-clause (b) of Clause 10 required that application for mineral concession either fresh or renewal is to be submitted to the State Government through the Deputy Commissioner of the District wherein the area applied for is situated, with NOC from District Council concerned and land owner. Clause 10 also refers to clearance of the Pollution Control Board of Meghalaya and other requirement. Sub-clause

(l) further contemplated that order for grant of mineral concessions will be issued by the State Government, with the approval of the Central Government wherever necessary. The Mining and Geology Department of the Government framed a draft guidelines for coal mining activity in the State which were prepared after consultation with the Central Government. The draft guidelines clearly mentions about the unregulated and unscientific mining being carried out in the State of Meghalaya. [Paras 85-87] [383-F-H; 384-A-B]

2.6 There can be no dispute to the preposition that in view of MMDR Act, 1957, the legislative competence of State of Meghalaya under Entry 23 List II stood denuded. However, under the MMDR Act, 1957 as well as the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, several statutory obligations/jurisdictions have been conferred on the State of Meghalaya. When under a Parliamentary enactment, State has been given some statutory obligations, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the State to frame policy to give effect to or implement the jurisdictions conferred on the State by Parliamentary enactments. It is true that Mining Policy to be framed by the State has to confine to the jurisdiction conferred on it as per the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder. There are other related issues concerning Mining like protection of environment and forests for which the State has to declare its policy for implementation of its objective. Several other aspects relating to mining like, rehabilitation, reclamation and restoration have to be effectively implemented by the State for which also, it may be required to frame a policy. Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012 was already framed by the State of Meghalaya, even before directions were issued by the NGT. In pursuance of NGT directions, it was draft guidelines of 2015, which were prepared by State of Meghalaya. Thus, direction of NGT to declare Mining Policy by the State of DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Meghalaya cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. However, the State in its Mining Policy can only include those areas where it has jurisdiction under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder. A perusal of the entire Policy documents indicate that Policy has been framed by the State as per the Act, 1957 and Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960. [Paras 89, 90, 91] [324-F-G; 385-A-E]

Whether for mining the minerals from privately owned/community owned land in hills districts of Meghalaya, obtaining a mining lease is a statutory requirement under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960?

3.1 The Act, 1957 has been enacted in reference to Entry

54 List I of Seventh Schedule. The Legislative power under Entry 23 is subject to the provision of List I with respect to regulation and development under the control of the Union. When the Union has declared to have taken under its control the regulation of mines and development of minerals to the extent provided in the Act, legislative power of the State to the above extent is denuded. Section 4 of the Act contains general restriction on undertaking prospecting and mining operation. Section 4 is couched in terms of an injunction. No person shall undertake any mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, of a mining lease, granted under this Act and rules made thereunder. The use of word ‘no person’ in Section 4(1) is without an exception. There is nothing in Section 4(1) to indicate that restriction contained in Section 4(1) does not apply with regard to a person who is owner of the mine. Further, word ‘any area’ under Section 4(1) also has significance which does not have any exception. Further phrase ‘except under and in accordance with terms and condition with a mining lease granted under the Act’ are also significant which make the intent and purpose of prohibition clear and loud. [Paras 95, 97, 99, 100] [386-C-F; 387-B; 388-A-B]

3.2 Section 5 contains restriction on the grant of prospecting licences and mining lease. The proviso to Section 5(1) contains a further restriction that no mining lease shall be granted with regard to any minerals specified in Para A of First Schedule except with the previous approval of the Central Government. Coal is in Para A of First Schedule. Section 13 provides for Rule making power of Central Government in respect of minerals. Reading clause (a) and clause (f) of Section 13(2) makes clear that the Rules can be made for grant of mining lease in respect of land in which minerals vest in the Government as well as in respect of any land in which minerals vest in person other than Government. The statutory scheme, thus, is clear that lease can be granted with regard to both the categories of land, land in which Government is owner of minerals and land in which minerals vest in person other than Government. The Tribals, owners of the minerals shall expressly fall in Rule making power of the Government under Section 13(2) (f). [Paras 100, 101, 103] [388-B; 389-B-C; 390-A-B]

3.3 The Central Government in exercise of power under Section 13 has framed Rules, namely, Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960. The statutory scheme delineated by Section 13(2)(f) and the Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 clearly contemplate grant of mining lease, with regard to both the categories of land, that is, land in which minerals vest in the Government, and the land in which minerals vest in a person other than the Government. There is no exception that when owner himself wants to win the minerals he does not require any mining lease. [Paras 104, 105] [390-C-D; 391-B]

Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition Para 321 – referred to.

3.4 The word ‘mining lease’ has been given specific meaning under Act, 1957. It is well settled principle of interpretation that the provisions of an Act including definition of a term is to be interpreted in a manner which may advance the object of the legislation. The essential characteristic of mining lease is that it is granted for the purpose of undertaking mining operation and mining operation means any operation undertaken for the purpose of winning the mineral. Applying said definition in the Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 under Chapter V, it DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

cannot be said that no mining lease is contemplated with respect to land where mineral vests exclusively in a private person. [Para 111] [394-E-F]

Sri Tarkeshwar Sio Thakur Jiu v. Dar Dass Dey & Co. and Others (1979) 3 SCC 106 ; State of Karnataka and Others v. Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar and Others (1993) 3 Suppl. SCC 290 – referred to

3.5 The Mines Act, 1952 is an Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the regulation of labour and safety of mines. The Act contains various provisions regarding inspection of mining operation and management of mines. Section 18 contains duties and responsibilities of owners, agents and managers. There are various other provisions in the Mines Act, 1952 which are mandatory to be followed before working any mine. Section 16 obligates the owner, agent or manager of a mine to give notice before the commencement of any mining operation to the District Magistrate of the District in which the mine is situate. Section 75 of the Mines Act, 1952 also empowers the District Magistrate to institute prosecution against any owner, agent or manager for any offence under the Mines Act, 1952. In exercise of the power under Section 57 of Mines Act, 1952 a new set of regulations has been framed, namely, Coal Mines Regulations, 2017. The Regulations contain several regulatory provisions which need to be followed while working a mine by the owner or his agent. The enforcement of Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations, 2017 have to be ensured in the public interest by the state of Meghalaya. [Paras 113, 114, 116, 118] [394-H; 395-A-D; 396-E-F; 397-C-D]

3.6 Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 provided for requirements of prior environmental clearance with regard to projects enumerates therein. Notification dated 14.09.2006 was issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in exercise of power under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Schedule to the notification listed the projects or activities requiring prior environmental clearance. “Mining of minerals” included at Item No.1(a) but even for mining project requirement of minimum 5 hectares area was required for applicability of the project. Substituting Item No.1(a) of Notification dated 14.09.2006 a new notification dated 15.01.2016 has been issued. As per statutory regime brought in force by notification dated 15.01.2016, environmental clearance is required for a project of coal for mining of any extent of area. The notification dated 15.01.2016 being a statutory provision shall operate on its own force and no order of any Court is required for enforcement of notification dated 15.01.2016. While implementing statutory regime for carrying mining operations in the Hills District of the State of Meghalaya, the State of Meghalaya has to ensure compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but Mines Act, 1952 as well as Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. [Paras 119-121] [397-E-G; 398-F-H]

Whether under the MMDR Act, 1957 and Mineral

Concession Rules, 1960, it is the State Government, who is to grant lease for mining of minerals in privately owned/community owned land or it is the owner of the minerals, who is to grant lease for carrying out mining operations?

4.1 Chapter IV of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 deals with grant of mining leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government and Chapter V deals with procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person other than the Government. Chapter IV contains Rules 22 to 40 and Chapter V contains Rules 41 to 52 and the procedure and manner of applying for mining lease and grant of lease as contained in Chapter IV is not made applicable to the procedure as given in Chapter V except that by virtue of Rule 45(i) certain conditions of mining lease as contained in Rule 27 under Chapter IV are made applicable for mining lease under Chapter V. [Para 123] [399-C-D]

4.2 Rule 22(1) provides that an application for the grant of a mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government shall be made to the State Government in Form I through such officer or authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf. In Chapter V, there is no such rule, which requires making an application for lease to the State DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Government. There is a marked difference between the rules contained in Chapter IV and rules contained in Chapter V. Rule 27(2) provides that a mining lease may contain such other conditions as the State Government may deem necessary in regard to the matters enumerated therein. Whereas Rule 45(iii) provides that every mining lease may contain such other conditions, not being inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and these rules, as may be agreed upon between the parties. The above provision gives an indication that in the lease executed by Chapter V, the omission of word “State Government” in Rule 45(iii) is indicative of the fact that conditions, which are to be added has to be agreed upon between the parties. It is provided in Rule 45(i) that in clauses (c) and (d) of Rule 27 for the words “State Government” the word “lessor” shall be substituted, which gives a clear indication that State Government is not a lessor in a lease granted under Chapter V. [Paras 124, 125] [399-E-G; 400-F]

4.3 Under Rule 27(5), if the lessee makes any default in the payment of the royalty or the payment of dead rent or commits breach of any of the conditions, the State Government shall give notice to the lessee and determine the lease and forfeit the whole or part of the security deposit. Whereas under rule 45(iv), the said power has been vested in the lessor, which also indicates that it is lessor, who will determine the lease and not the State Government. Rule 47 provides for submission of copy of licence or lease to the State Government within three months of the grant of such licence or lease. Requirement of submitting the licence or lease copy to the State Government indicate that the State Government is not the authority, who is granting the lease, otherwise there was no requirement of submitting a copy to the State Government, if it was contemplated that State Government shall grant the lease. [Para 126] [401-B-E]

4.4 Prior to MMDR Act, 1957, earlier Central Legislation which was governing the field was Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, under which rules have been framed by Central Government namely, Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. Rule 14 of Chapter III contemplated application for prospecting license. Chapter IV of the Rules, 1949 contained the heading “grant of Mining Lease in respect of land in which the minerals belong to Government”. The provisions of Rule 27 of Chapter IV provide for application for mining lease and there were several other rules under Chapter IV, which in substance have been retained in Chapter IV of Rules, 1960. Chapter V of Rules, 1949 contained the heading “grant of mineral concessions by private persons.” The heading of Chapter V under Rules, 1960 is “procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person other than the Government.” Rule

47 of Chapter V of Rules, 1949 provide for “conditions in a mining lease”, which are in substance similar as Rule 45 of Rules, 1960. Rule 47(iv) of the Rules, 1949 was akin to present Rule 45(i) of the Rules, 1960. [Para 127] [401-G-H; 402-A-C]

4.5 Thus, the Chapter V of Rules, 1949 dealt with the mining lease granted by private persons, i.e., the category where the minerals were not owned by the Government but was owned by private persons. Chapter V of the Rules, 1960 contains substantially similar provisions. Thus, Chapter V of Rules, 1960 has to be treated to be dealing with minerals owned by private owners. The earlier statutory regime, which was enforced as per Rules, 1949 made it amply clear that mineral concessions are to be granted by private persons also, which is in substances retained in Chapter V of Rules, 1960. Thus, mining lease to be granted as per Chapter V of Rules, 1960 is mining lease by the owner of mineral and similar concept has to be borrowed and read in Chapter V. Absence of any procedure to make an application for mining lease to the State Government in Chapter V of the Rules, 1960 and lessor being the private persons and not the State Government, clearly indicates that State Government is not to grant the lease in respect of land of privately owned/ community owned owners. [Para 128] [402-F-H; 403-A]

4.6 Another reason for not providing any application to State Government for grant of mining lease in respect of minerals, which vests in the private owners and community DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

owners is that; without consent or willingness of private owners/community owners of minerals, no authority is empowered to grant any mining lease with regard to minerals, of which he is the owner, it is the owner of the minerals may be private persons or community owners, who is entitled to grant lease of minerals as per the provisions of Chapter V of Rules, 1960. As per the statutory provisions contained in Rules, 1960 especially Chapter V, a mining lease for minerals, which belongs to a private owner or a community owner, it is not the State Government, which is entitled to receive any application or grant any mining lease, but it is the private owner or community owner, who is entitled to grant a lease for mining minerals owned by them. [Paras 129, 130] [403-A-D]

Whether the State of Meghalaya has any statutory control over the mining of coal from privately owned/community owned land in hills districts of State of Meghalaya?

5.1 As per Rule 42(2), except with the previous approval of the Central Government, no prospecting licence or mining lease shall be granted in respect of any mineral specified in the First Schedule to the Act. Thus, previous approval of Central Government is mandatory before grant of mining lease of coal. Rule 63 provides that the approval of the Central Government has to be obtained through the State Government. Thus, the State Government has to be aware that any previous approval of the Central Government for mining coal has been obtained or not. Thus, restriction being statutory and without any exception State Government cannot say that it has no role to play with regard to mining of coal. Rule 50 empowers the State Government with the approval of the Central Government to direct the parties concerned not to undertake any mining operations, if it has reasons to believe that the grant or transfer of mining lease is in contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter V. Thus, when mining operations of coal are being conducted without prior approval of Central Government, State is not powerless to direct the parties not to undertake any prospective mining operations in the area. The power given under Rule 50 is not only enabling power, but is a statutory obligation on the State to exercise the power in the public interest. Rule 52 gives the State Government ample power to prosecute and punish mining leases or his transferees or assignees on violation of the rules or contravention of any of the provisions of Chapter V, which is ample power to the State to ensure that the Act is faithfully followed. The State was advised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in its report ended 31st March, 2013 in para 4.5.1 to regulate mining by following Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. [Para 133-136] [404-C-E, H; 405-A-B, E-G]

5.2 The State is thus well aware of its statutory obligation which is reflected in Mining Policy of 2012 and Draft Guidelines, 2015 but still before this Court their contention that no mining lease is to be obtained for privately owned/community owned land in Hills District of State of Meghalaya is unacceptable and not in a good spirit. Our country being governed by the Constitution of India, all the States are to implement Parliamentary Acts in true spirit and in the present case the State having been advised time and again by Comptroller and Auditor General and being well aware of its statutory obligation it comes ill from the State to contend before this Court that there is no requirement of mining lease for winning the minerals. [Para137] [405-H; 406-A-C] Whether the power to allot land for mining purposes is vested in Autonomous District Councils?

6.1 Para 3 of Schedule VI of the Constitution enumerates the power of District Council and Regional Council to make laws. Certain legislation framed by District Council are the Khasi Hills District (Trading by Non Tribals) Regulation, 1954, the United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and Control of Forest) Rules, 1960, the Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Trading by Non Tribals) Rules, 1959, all framed in exercise of power under para 3 of Sixth Schedule. The power to make law entrusted to Autonomous District Council under para 3 of Schedule VI is power to make law referable to List 2 and List 3 of the Seventh Schedule. With regard to regulation and development of mineral, the Union has made declaration by Section 2 of 1957 Act and the power of the State Legislature is denuded in that respect. The logical corollary of the above principle is that power of Autonomous District Council shall also DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

be denuded in so far as regulation and development of minerals to the extent which is covered by 1957 Act. Rule 4 of United Khasi Jaintia Hills District (Trading by non Tribals) Rules,1959, which contemplates form of licence and one of the licence referred to is under Rule 4 is licence in Form E. [Paras 138, 139] [406-F-H; 407-A-B]

6.2 The United Khasi Jaintia Hills District (Trading by Non-Tribal) Rules, 1959 has been repealed insofar as Jaintia Hills Districts are concerned by the Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Trading by Non-Tribal) Regulation Act, 2011. Rules, 1959 is still in force in Khasi Hills Autonomous Districts, since, no other regulations have been placed repealing the Rules, 1959. Regulations, 2011 have nothing to do with the mining of coal. Paragraph 9 of the Schedule VI confines to the licences or leases of minerals granted by Government of the State. Schedule VI which constitute the District Councils and Regional Councils enumerates their powers. Para 9 only deals with share of the royalties to District Councils as agreed upon between the Government of the State and the District Councils. Further paragraph 12(A)(a) itself contemplates that any law made by District Council or Regional Council which is repugnant to any law of the State shall be void. Thus, the status of law made by District Council or Regional councils has to give way to the law made by the State. There can be no doubt that District Council and Regional Council cannot make any law which may be repugnant to the provisions of the Parliamentary Act. Thus, District Council does not have any power to make any law with regard to grant of mining lease. The mining leases for winning the major minerals has to be granted in accordance with 1957 Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. [Paras 140-144] [407-E-F; 408-B, G-H; 409-A-B]

Whether the order of National Green Tribunal dated 17.04.2014 directing for complete ban on mining is unsustainable?

Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the State of Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to be vacated/modified in the interest of State and Tribals?

7.1 The use of natural resources plays major role in carrying out development. A fine balance has to be maintained in utilisation of natural resources and its conservation and preservation. One cannot be sacrificed for the interest of other. The concept of Sustainable Development has been evolved and is being pursued. By order of NGT dated 17.04.2014, the Rat hole mining/illegal mining was prohibited throughout the State of Meghalaya. In OA No.73 of 2014 in which said order was passed, sufficient materials were brought on the record including experts report which proved that illegal coal mining in the State of Meghalaya is degrading the environment. There is no error in the order of NGT reaffirming its ban order in the facts of the case. The revenue earned by the State from coal mining plays substantial part in the economy of the State. It is also amply demonstrated from the record that tribals are the owners of the land who carry on mining of coal in their land by which they earn their substantial livelihood. [Paras 146, 147, 150] [409-F-G; 410-D-E; 412-B-C]

State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone and Others (1981) 2 SCC 205 : [1981] 2 SCR 742 – relied on. Lafarge Umiam Mining (pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India & Others (2011) 7 SCC 338 : [2011] 7 SCR 954 –

referred to.

7.2 Although the manner in which the mining is being carried out by the tribals cannot be approved which is clearly in violation of statutory regime under 1957 Act and 1960 Rules but in event the mining is carried out by tribals or their assignees as per the provisions of 1957 Act and 1960 Rules, there can be no objections in carrying such mining under the regulation and control of State of Meghalaya and the ban order dated 17.04.2014 of the tribunal shall not come in its way of carrying mining operations. The ban order is for the illegal coal mining which was rampant in the State of Meghalaya and cannot be extended to valid and legal mining as per 1957 Act and 1960 Rules. [Para 151] [412-D-F]

Whether NGT had any jurisdiction to constitute committees to submit reports, to implement the orders of NGT, to monitor storage/transportation; of minerals and to prepare action plan DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

for restoration of environment? Whether the NGT committed error in directing for constitution of fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund?

8.1 Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of NGT Act provides that Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. What sub-section (1) meant to convey is that Tribunal is not shackled with the procedure laid down by the CPC for conducting its proceedings. Sub-section (2) of Section 19 empowers the Tribunal, powers to regulate its own procedure. Section 19(4) vests some powers as are vested in civil court, while trying a suit, in respect of matters enumerated therein. The use of expression “shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the CPC” is not akin to saying that procedure as laid down by the CPC is in no manner relevant to the Tribunal. Further, Section 19(1) also does not mean that Tribunal cannot follow any procedure given in the CPC. One provision of CPC inserted by Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 01.02.1977 is Order XXVI, which is relevant for present inquiry. [Para 154] [414-E-G]

8.2 Rule 10A of Order XXVI CPC provides that where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to do, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such question and report thereon to the Court. Rule 10A is enabling power to the courts to obtain report from such persons as it thinks fit when any question involves with the scientific investigation. The powers under Rule 10A which are to be exercised by the Court can very well be used by the NGT to obtain reports by experts. The NGT as per the statutory scheme of the NGT has to decide several complex questions pertaining to pollution and environment. The scientific investigation and report by experts are necessary requirement in appropriate cases to come to correct conclusion to find out measures to remedy the pollution and environment. There is no dearth of jurisdiction in the NGT to appoint a committee to submit a report. While asking expert to give a report the NGT is not confined to the four corners of Rule 10A rather its jurisdiction is not shackled by strict terms of Order 26 Rule 10A s per Section 19(1). [Para 155] [415-C-E]

8.3 Under Section 35 of the NGT Act, 2010, Central Government is empowered to make rule for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Rules have been framed in exercise of powers under Section 35, namely, National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011. The said Rules have been framed in exercise of powers under Section 4(4) as well as Section 35. The Rules, 2011 are Rules also for practices and procedure of the Tribunal. [Para 156] [415-F-G]

8.5 Rule 24 empowers the Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to secure the ends of justice. Rule 24 gives wide powers to the Tribunal to secure the ends of justice. Rule

24 vests special power to Tribunal to pass orders and issue directions to secure ends of justice. Use of words ‘may’, ‘such orders’, ‘gives such directions’, ‘as may be necessary or expedient’, ‘to give effect to its orders’, ‘order to prevent abuse of process’, are words which enable the Tribunal to pass orders and the above words confer wide discretion. [Para 157] [416-B-C]

8.4 The enabling powers give to the Tribunal under Rule

24 is for purpose and object to decide the subjects which are to be examined, decided and an appropriate relief is to be granted by the Tribunal. Further, subjects contain wide range of subjects which require technical and scientific inputs. The Tribunal can pass such orders as it may think fit necessary or expedient to secure ends of justice. The object for which said power is given is not far to seek. To fulfil objective of the NGT Act, 2010. NGT has to exercise a wide range of jurisdiction and has to possess vide range of powers to do justice in a given case. The power is given to exercise for the benefit of those who have right for clean environment which right they have to establish before the Tribunal. The power given to the Tribunal is coupled with duty to exercise such powers for achieving the objects. There is no lack DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

of jurisdiction in the NGT to direct for appointment of committee or to obtain a report from a committee in given facts of the case. [Para 159, 160, 161] [416-E-H; 417-D]

L. Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly (1970) 2 SCC 355 : [1971] 3 SCR 683 – relied on. Professor Justice G.P. Singh in Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edition – referred to.

8.5 A Fund has been constituted by the Tribunal, namely, “Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund”. The NGT could have passed any order or direction to secure ends of justice which power especially conferred by Rule 24 direction to constitute Fund is thus also saved under such power. [Paras 162, 163] [417-E; 418-D-E]

Whether NGT by constituting Committees has delegated essential judicial powers to the Committees and has further encroached the constitutional scheme of administration of Tribal areas under Article 244(2) and Article 275(1) and Schedule VI of the Constitution?

9.1 The Tribunal by its various directions has asked for reports from State officials and the committees. The various instances where the NGT directed for report or investigation and submission of report by committees were with the object of ensuring the implementation of the orders passed by it and to decide the environmental issues raised before it. In no manner constitution of committee can be said to be delegation of essential judicial powers of the NGT to the committee. The Katakey committee was constituted by the Tribunal on 31.08.2018. The Constitution of the committee and its functions entrusted were with the object to implement the orders passed by the Tribunal. For the restoration of environment, NGT vide its order dated 31.08.2018 has directed the committee to submit its action plan and reports by e-mail. The Tribunal, thus, had kept complete control on all steps which were required to be taken by the committee and issued directions from time to time. Thus, the submission of the appellant that the essential judicial powers of the NGT had been delegated to the committee is not tenable. Looking to the enormous work of restoration of environment which has to be supervised on the spot the committee was constituted. However, the State is always at liberty to obtain particular direction if aggrieved by any act of the committee. The matter being pending before the Tribunal of acts of the committee are under direct control of the Tribunal and if the committee oversteps in any direction the same can very well be corrected by the Tribunal on the matter being brought before it. [Para 165-167] [418-G-H; 419-A, D-H; 420-A]

9.2. It is not case of the appellant that District and Regional Councils have framed any law for restoration of environment which is being breached by the committee or its acts. The District and Regional Councils are free to exercise all their powers and the committee constituted by the Tribunal is only concerned with the Environmental degradation and illegal coal mining. The committees’ report or direction of the Tribunal in no manner encroaches upon the administration of Tribal areas by the District and Regional Councils. [Para 168] [420-D-E] Whether direction to deposit Rs.100/- crores by the State of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019 of NGT impugned in C.A.No.2968 of 2019 is sustainable?

10.1 The NGT by its order dated 31.08.2018 constituted a committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, Former Judge of Gauhati High Court with representatives from Central Pollution Control Board and Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. The committee visited different sites, held various meetings, various presentations were also made before the committee by Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board and other bodies namely North Eastern Centre for Technology Application and Reach, North Eastern Space Application Centre. The committee observed that the coal mining activities which includes the extraction of coal and transportation is going on in the State of Meghalaya, at least in East Jaintia Hills District, where such mining activities are most, despite the ban imposed by the NGT by its order dated 17.4.2014. The fact that on 13.12.2018, 15 coal mine workers DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

were trapped in an ongoing coal mining operation, who all have been reported to be dead itself proves beyond any doubt that order dated 17.04.2014 banning mining in the entire State of Meghalaya was neither been enforced nor serious endeavours were taken by the State or its authorities to save the environmental pollution. With regard to restoration of the environment and restoration of the victims, action plans were formulated by the committee. [Paras 169, 171, 174] [420-E-F; 421-C-E; 422-E-F; 423-C-D]

10.2 The report being placed on website on 31.12.2018 itself, there was no question of serving copy of the report of the committee to the Stakeholders. Additional Chief Secretary of the Government of Meghalaya was himself the Member Secretary and Coordinator of the committee under the orders of the Tribunal dated 19.09.2018. All proceedings of the committee, its meetings and minutes, were with the knowledge and participation of the coordinator/ Additional Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya. A perusal of the direction to deposit Rs.100/- crores by the State of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019, indicates that although the State of Meghalaya was present and was heard but no kind of objection was raised regarding acceptability of the report. The report obtained by the NGT through the committee was to take effective steps towards protection of environmental pollution and for restoration of damaged environment. Pollution of the various rivers and streams and steps for treating the acidic water was urgently required. Several presentations before the committee were also made and different steps regarding restoration of environment were to be taken as noticed and indicated in the report of the committee. The NGT by its order dated 25.03.2015 constituted a fund namely ‘Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund’ to be maintained by the State under the direct control of the Chief Secretary of the State of Meghalaya. It is reiterated in the report of the committee that an amount of Rs.433 Crores is already lying in the said fund, which has not been spent. [Paras 176-177] 423-F-H; 424-A-C]

10.3 The amount, which has been directed by NGT to be deposited by State of Meghalaya is neither a penalty nor a fine imposed on the State. The amount has been directed to be deposited for carrying out steps regarding restoration of environment. The said amount cannot be said to be amount of damages to be paid by the State. State of Meghalaya has very limited source of revenue and putting an extra burden on the State of Meghalaya to make payment of Rs.100 Crores from its own financial resources and budgetary amount may cause great hardship to the State of Meghalaya. Ends of justice be served in modifying the direction of NGT dated 04.01.2019 to the extent that State is permitted to transfer an amount of Rs.100 Crores from the amount lying in the MEPRF to the Central Pollution Control Board. The Central Pollution Control Board as directed by NGT shall utilise the said amount of Rs.100 Crores only for restoration of the environment. [Para 179] [424-D-G] Whether NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016 that after 15.05.2016 all remaining coal shall vest in the State of Meghalaya is sustainable?

11. The mining of coal in contravention of Section 4(1) invites penalties as enumerated in Section 21. The present is not a case where any kind of penalty has been imposed on the miners except that the amount of royalty as payable on mining of coal is being collected by the State as penalty. It is true that the State Government has power under Section 21(5) to recover from such person the minerals so raised, or, where such material has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, but it is for the State Government to exercise its power under Section 21(5) by way of penalty. The NGT has not given any reason as to how coal shall automatically vest in the State. The right of recovery of mineral as contemplated under Section 21(5) does not amount to say that proprietary right of owner of the minerals is lost rather State under Section 21(5) exercises its power to recover the mineral which has been raised without any lawful authority. Thus, coal extracted and lying in open after 15.05.2016 was not automatically vested in the State and the owner of the coal or the person who has mined the coal shall have the proprietary right in the mineral which shall not be lost. [Para 182[ [486-E-H]

DIMA-HASAO DISTT COMMITTEE

Whether assessed and unassessed coal which has already been extracted and lying in different Districts of Meghalaya be permitted to be transported and what mechanism be adopted for disposal of such coal?

12.1 Several I.A.s were filed by different applicants seeking direction to transport already extracted coal lying at different places in hills districts of State of Meghalaya. The State Government itself came with a case that huge quantity of coal in the four hills districts, which has been extracted is lying waiting for orders of transportation. In the instant case, illegal coal mining is going on in spite of ban by NGT by its order dated 17.04.2014. The Katakey committee report has also opined that all the extracted coal lying in different districts is a coal, which has been illegally mined after the imposition of ban by the order dated 17.04.2014. All coals being illegally mined, the State is fully entitled to impose a penalty, i.e., to realise the royalty and the amount of MEPR Fund. The coal being major mineral and useful for different industries and projects, appropriate disposal of extracted coal is also of a paramount importance. [Paras 183, 184, 185] [427-A; 429-D; 430-A]

12.2 Entire extracted coal lying at various places is directed to be taken over by Coal India Ltd, a Government of India unit, who may dispose of the same as per its normal method of disposal and proceeds be distributed as per directions issued by this Court hereinafter. The NGT has already directed that for all extracted coal lying at different places, it is the State, which is the receiver-cum-custodian of the coal. The State having carried out the assessment of the coal lying in the said four districts including the details of the quantities and the details of owners being available with it, it may ensure that the entire coal are handed over to the Coal India Ltd., as per the mode and manner to be formulated by Katakey Committee, in consultation with officers of the Coal India Ltd. and State of Meghalaya. The Katakey committee and its various members and participants have done a commendable job in studying and examining various aspects of environment in the State of Meghalaya and several valuable suggestions have been given by the committee, which are also being implemented to mitigate the suffering of the citizens consequent to the illegal coal mined. [Paras 186, 187] [430-A-E]

12.3 Commissioner and Secretary of the State in the Department of Mining and Geology alongwith the officers of Coal India Ltd. are directed to deliberate with the Katakey committee to finalise a comprehensive plan for transportation and handing over of the coal to Coal India Ltd. for disposal/auction as per rules of Coal India Ltd. Disposal/auction by Coal India Ltd. shall be beneficial to both the owners of the mines as well as to the State of Meghalaya. It is for the Coal India Ltd. to decide as to venue, where they shall receive the coal, i.e., either at any of its depot or any other place in State of Meghalaya and it is for the Coal India Ltd. to finalise the process of disposal and auction of the coal. It shall be the duty of the State of Meghalaya and its officers especially Deputy Commissioner of the area concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal, name of the owner and place from where it is collected. Coal India Ltd. shall also take steps to ensure weighment of the coal when it is received by it and since all consequent steps regarding disposal, price grade of the coal shall be determined as per the weight of the coal received by the Coal India Ltd. from different places. The expenses of transportation shall be borne by the State of Meghalaya, Coal India Ltd. or by both, which expenses shall be deductible from the price received of the coal. The State of Meghalaya shall be entitled to royalty and payment towards MERP Fund as well as taxes out of the price of the coal. After deduction of cost of transportation, the payment of royalty and payment to MERP fund and taxes plus 10% of value of the coal to be given to Coal India Ltd. for the above exercise, balance amount shall be disbursed to the owner of the coal towards its price, which disbursement shall be the responsibility of the State. The Coal India Ltd. after taking its expenses for transportation with 10% of price of the coal shall remit the entire amount to the State and it is for the State after deducting the royalty and payment to the MERP Fund and taxes to pay back the balance of the amount to the owner. The coal, which has been seized by the State in illegal transportation or illegal mining for which different cases DIMA-HASAO DISTT. COMMITTEE

have been registered by the State shall, however, be dealt by the State in accordance with Section 21 of the Act, 1957 and on being satisfied, the State can take a decision to recover the entire quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful authority and the said cases has to be separately dealt with in accordance with law. Thus, all I.A.s filed by different applicants seeking order of transportation of the different quantities stand disposed of in view of the directions as given above. The Katakey committee in consultation with State of Meghalaya and officers of Coal India Ltd. would finalise appropriate mode and manner to affect the transport and disposal of the coal in the above manner. [Paras 188-190] [430-E-H; 431-A-D]