central empowered committee report (i) of the cec in writ petition
central empowered committee report (i) of the cec in writ petition central empowered committee report (i) of the cec in writ petition
would not be entitled to operate the mine without first getting the ex-post-facto approval from the MoEF under the FC Act. 4. On a representation made by M/s RMML the Conservator of Forests, Bellary Circle, vide letter dated 7.10.2009, directed the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary District to submit the compliance report in respect of the above said “in principle approval” granted in favour of the leaseholder(enclosed at ANNEXURE–R-37 to this Report). Subsequently, the Conservator of Forests, Bellary Circle vide letter dated 1.4.2010(enclosed at ANNEXURE– R-38 to this Report) withdrew the above mentioned letter dated 7.10.2009 on the purported ground that no directions in connection with the Court orders had been received by him either from the Govt. or higher authorities. The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary Circle did not send the compliance report regarding the conditions stated in “in principle approval” granted by the MoEF and in the absence of the compliance Report from the State of Karnataka, the MoEF did not issue the formal approval under the FC Act. It was much later that the MoEF vide letters dated 9.9.2010 and 15.9.2010 (enclosed at ANNEXURE–R-39 to this Report) granted the formal approval under the FC Act for the diversion of 335.04 ha. of forest land for the ML No.2010. The Government of Karnataka vide recent letter dated 54
16.3.2011 (enclosed at ANNEXURE–R-40 to this Report) has requested the MoEF to cancel the formal approval as this approval has been granted without receipt of the compliance report from the State Government. 5. There are a number of mining leases which have a common boundary with the ML No.2010 of M/s. RMML (all are in forest land). These include mining leases of M/s. S.B. Minerals (M.L.No. 2550), M/s. Balaji Mines and Minerals (M.L.No. 2564), M/s. Trident Minerals (M.L.No. 2315), M/s. Veeyam Pvt. Ltd. (M.L.No. 988) and M/s. Muneer Enterprises (M.L.No. 2320). The Lokayukta of Karnataka in 2006-07 carried out a survey of these mining leases and determined the boundaries of the mining leases based on the approved lease sketches as well as the actual area under enjoyment. The GPS readings of the corners of the boundaries of the mining lease as per the sanctioned lease sketch and the enjoyment lines as existing at that time were recorded and these boundaries were demarcated on the ground and also on the Satellite Imageries. The area between the boundary of the mining lease as per the approved lease sketch and the enjoyment line as observed on the ground represented the area wherein illegal mining and encroachment in the forest area had taken place. During the site visit of the CEC the pillars along the common 55
- Page 3 and 4: 15.3.2003 and other related notific
- Page 5 and 6: een filed by the CEC (Report (Inter
- Page 7 and 8: Karnataka comes to Rs.15,245 crores
- Page 9 and 10: 8. Subsequently when the inspecting
- Page 11 and 12: zone and afforestation are provided
- Page 13 and 14: een taken to verify the details of
- Page 15 and 16: forest land. In Bellary District, t
- Page 17 and 18: officers of the State of Karnataka
- Page 19 and 20: with the active connivance of the o
- Page 21 and 22: sensitive positions are also simult
- Page 23 and 24: CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE REPORT
- Page 25 and 26: merger Agreement inter alia conferr
- Page 27 and 28: the details of the areas notified u
- Page 29 and 30: 8. Large tracts of areas in Karnata
- Page 31 and 32: 10. From the above it may be seen t
- Page 33 and 34: 5. 2646 M/s Shiva Vilas Trust 6. Sh
- Page 35 and 36: non-forest land. Falls in de-reserv
- Page 37 and 38: the Divisional Forest Officer. A st
- Page 39 and 40: have been provided by the Karnataka
- Page 41 and 42: favour of M/s Shiva Vilas Trust, wh
- Page 43 and 44: Hon’ble Karnataka High Court are
- Page 45 and 46: sanctioned lease area, the Lokayukt
- Page 47 and 48: notification issued under Section 4
- Page 49 and 50: directed to be undertaken in a time
- Page 51 and 52: y them because of mining leases ill
- Page 53: However, the formal approval under
- Page 57 and 58: 7. There have been consistent compl
- Page 59 and 60: demarcated the mining lease of M/s.
- Page 61 and 62: satellite imageries. During the sit
- Page 63 and 64: y the S.B. Minerals, as seen in the
- Page 65 and 66: considered view that the joint surv
- Page 67 and 68: 67 man’s land available for illeg
- Page 69 and 70: 69 Lokayukta, Karnataka, report of
- Page 71 and 72: CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE REPORT
- Page 73 and 74: prosecute the FIR dated 3.2.2009 an
- Page 75 and 76: 3. Similar directions have been pas
- Page 77 and 78: 6. The findings of the Lokayukta, K
- Page 79 and 80: illegality in respect of mining lea
- Page 81 and 82: CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE REPORT
- Page 83 and 84: hectares of already broken up fores
- Page 85 and 86: (iii) Deputy Conservator of Forests
- Page 87 and 88: the leased out area which is not di
- Page 89 and 90: compliance of the directions of the
- Page 91 and 92: Report. A copy of the note of the P
- Page 93 and 94: viii) the case involved wilful viol
- Page 95 and 96: the Conservator of Forest, Bellary
- Page 97 and 98: egard to the iron ore seized by the
would not be entitled to operate <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong>e without first gett<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>the</strong> ex-post-facto approval from <strong>the</strong> MoEF under <strong>the</strong> FC Act.<br />
4. On a representation made by M/s RMML <strong>the</strong><br />
Conservator <strong>of</strong> Forests, Bellary Circle, vide letter dated<br />
7.10.2009, directed <strong>the</strong> Deputy Conservator <strong>of</strong> Forests,<br />
Bellary District to submit <strong>the</strong> compliance <strong>report</strong> <strong>in</strong> respect <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> above said “<strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple approval” granted <strong>in</strong> favour <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> leaseholder(enclosed at ANNEXURE–R-37 to this<br />
Report). Subsequently, <strong>the</strong> Conservator <strong>of</strong> Forests, Bellary<br />
Circle vide letter dated 1.4.2010(enclosed at ANNEXURE–<br />
R-38 to this Report) withdrew <strong>the</strong> above mentioned letter<br />
dated 7.10.2009 on <strong>the</strong> purported ground that no directions<br />
<strong>in</strong> connection with <strong>the</strong> Court orders had been received by<br />
him ei<strong>the</strong>r from <strong>the</strong> Govt. or higher authorities. The Deputy<br />
Conservator <strong>of</strong> Forests, Bellary Circle did not send <strong>the</strong><br />
compliance <strong>report</strong> regard<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> conditions stated <strong>in</strong> “<strong>in</strong><br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciple approval” granted by <strong>the</strong> MoEF and <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> absence<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> compliance Report from <strong>the</strong> State <strong>of</strong> Karnataka, <strong>the</strong><br />
MoEF did not issue <strong>the</strong> formal approval under <strong>the</strong> FC Act. It<br />
was much later that <strong>the</strong> MoEF vide letters dated 9.9.2010<br />
and 15.9.2010 (enclosed at ANNEXURE–R-39 to this<br />
Report) granted <strong>the</strong> formal approval under <strong>the</strong> FC Act for <strong>the</strong><br />
diversion <strong>of</strong> 335.04 ha. <strong>of</strong> forest land for <strong>the</strong> ML No.2010.<br />
The Government <strong>of</strong> Karnataka vide recent letter dated<br />
54
Change language