2018 11 1501 14662 Judgement 03-Jul-2019

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10720 OF 2018
STATE OF MEGHALAYA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,

DIMA-HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10611 OF 2018
THE STATE COORDINATION COMMITTEE

OF COAL OWNERS, MINERS AND DEALERS
FORUM ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION

DIMA HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10907 OF 2018
GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT

COUNCIL ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS

WITH
KA HIMA NONGSTOIN LAND OWNERS,

COAL TRADERS AND
PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
Signature Not Verified
...APPELLANT(S)
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
VERSUS
Date: 2019.07.03
11:48:29 IST
Reason:

2
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2019

(@C.A. DIARY NO. 3067 OF 2018)
LBER LALOO ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,

HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
STATE OF MEGHALAYA ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS

J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Natural resources of the country are not meant to
be consumed only by the present generation of men or
women of the region where natural resources are
deposited. These treasures of nature are for all
generations to come and for intelligent use of the

3
entire country. The present generation owes a duty to
preserve and conserve the natural resources of the
nation so that it may be used in the best interest of
coming generations as well and for the country as a
whole.
2. These appeals have been filed challenging various
orders passed by National Green Tribunal wherein
several directions were issued, measures to be taken
to check and combat the unregulated coal mining in
Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya which coal mining
resulted not only loss of lives but damaged the
environment of the area.
Details of appeals
3. Civil Appeal Nos. 10720 of 2018, 10611 of 2018 and
10907 of 2018 have been filed against order dated
31.08.2018 passed by the National Green Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi. Civil Appeal No.5272 of
2016 has been filed by KA Hima Nongstoin Land Owners,
Coal Traders and Producers Association against the

4
order dated 10.05.2016 of the National Green Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi. Civil Appeal (Diary
No.3067) of 2018 has been filed by Lber Laloo against
order dated 25.03.2015 of National Green Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi and Civil Appeal No.2968 of
2019 has been filed against order dated 04.01.2019 of
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by
which State of Meghalaya has been directed to deposit
Rs.100 crores with the Central Pollution Control Board.
4. All the appeals having been filed against the
orders of National Green Tribunal (NGT), it is
necessary to notice the details of various proceedings
before the NGT to appreciate the grievances raised in
the appeals. The Gauhati High Court on the basis of a
News item to the effect that on 06.07.2012, 30 coal
labourers were trapped inside a coal mine at
Nongalbibra in the District of South Garo Hill and 15
of them died inside the coal mine, registered PIL suo
moto No.(SH) 3 of 2012. Vide order dated 10.12.2012
of the Gauhati High Court the matter was directed to
be transferred to NGT in which notice was issued by the

5
Tribunal on 30.01.2013. Transferred matter was
registered as Original Application NO.11(THC)/2012.
All Dimasa Students Union Dima Hasao District Committee
filed an Original Application No.73 of 2014 before
National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench making serious
complaints with regard to rat-hole mining operation,
which has been going on in Jaintia Hills in the State
of Meghalaya for last many years without being
regulated by any law. It was alleged that in the course
of rat-hole coal mining by flooding water several
employees and workers have died. The applicant had also
brought before the Tribunal a detailed report of one
Dr. O.P. Singh, Professor, Department of Environmental
Studies, North-Eastern Hills University, Shillong,
Meghalaya where entire aspects of the coal mining in
the State of Meghalaya were discussed. The NGT admitted
the application and took the view that illegal and
unscientific mining neither can be held to be in the
interest of people of the area, the people working in
the mines nor in the interest of environment. After
hearing applicant, the Tribunal on 17.04.2014 passed
an order directing the Chief Secretary of Meghalaya,

6
Director General of Police, State of Meghalaya to
ensure that rat-hole mining/illegal mining is stopped
forthwith throughout the State of Meghalaya and any
illegal transport of coal shall not take place until
further orders passed by the Tribunal. After the
passing of the order dated 17.04.2014 various
applications were filed before the Tribunal by
different Associations and persons claiming interest
in the subject matter of the application. Application
No. 317/2019 was filed by Western Coal Miners and
Exporters Association for being impleaded in O.A. No.73
of 2014, which was allowed. Another application
M.A.No.306 of 2014 was filed by Khasi Hills District
Autonomous District Council, Shillong, East Khasi Hills
District, Meghalaya (one of the appellants before us)
for impleadment claiming to be a constitutional body
and entitled in the sharing primarily of the royalty
on the coal produced/mined, which application was
allowed.
5. The Tribunal clubbed O.A.No.13 of 2014, O.A.No.73
of 2014 and O.A.No.11(THC)/2012. Miscellaneous
applications were filed before the Tribunal praying for

7
vacating the order dated 17.04.2014. Against order
dated 17.04.2014, C.A.No.5756 of 2014 was filed by a
coal mine owner. The miscellaneous application was also
filed by the State Coordination Committee of the
Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya (one of the
appellants before us) for their impleadment, which was
allowed. This Court dismissed the Civil Appeal filed
against the order dated 17.04.2014 passed by the
Tribunal, however, granted liberty to the appellant to
approach the Tribunal for modification of the order.
The Tribunal also noticed in its order dated 09.06.2014
that there has been serious air, water and
environmental pollution being caused by the illegal,
unregulated and indiscriminate rat-hole mining being
carried on in various parts of the State of Meghalaya.
Serious pollution to the upstream was also noticed. The
Tribunal, however, noticed that there are documents on
record to show that right from the year 2003, there has
been serious air and water pollution in the mining
areas of Meghalaya which is injurious and has not only
resulted in degradation of environment, particularly
the streams and underground water, but has also

8
seriously jeopardised the human health. It was further
noticed that Transportation of coal in an illegal,
unregulated, indiscriminate and unscientific manner
has resulted in serious diseases to the people. The
report of the Committee dated 09.06.2014 was noticed
by the Tribunal. By order dated 09.06.2014 while
permitting the transportation of the already extracted
coal lying in open near the mining sites, constituted
a committee for supervising such transportation.
Various other directions were issued to the committee
as well as to the State and its authorities.
6. By a subsequent order dated 01.08.2014 the Tribunal
noticed that the committee earlier constituted by order
dated 09.06.2014 failed to perform the functions
assigned to it, hence, a new committee was constituted.
The Tribunal from time to time issued various
directions. We need to notice four orders passed by the
Tribunal in detail which are subject matter of
challenge in these appeals. The orders which are
subject matter in these appeals are orders dated
25.03.2015, 10.05.2016, 31.08.2018 and 04.01.2019.

9
Order dated 25.03.2015
7. In order dated 25.03.2015 NGT noticed that the
rampant, illegal, unscientific and life-threatening
mining activity, particularly rat hole mining is going
on in the State of Meghalaya for years. The NGT noticed
the report of Commissioner appointed by it and opined
that in spite of order dated 17.04.2014 fresh mining
was going on. The Tribunal also noticed that State of
Meghalaya has promulgated a Mining Policy of 2012 which
does not deal with rat hole mining. The State
Government was also directed to formulate and declare
Mining Policy and Guidelines for the State of Meghalaya
to deal with all aspects of mining, which Policy was
yet to see the light of the day. The Tribunal also
noticed that the order of the Tribunal has been
violated by illegal mining despite complete prohibitory
orders. It was noticed that the State Government has
found as many as 73 cases of illegal transportation of
coal in one District. Further, 15 more cases of
specific violation of the NGT orders had already been
registered by the State Government. In all 11 Districts
of State of Meghalaya, 308 cases of violation have been

10
registered and a total number of 605 trucks and 2675.63
tonnes of coal has been seized. The stand of the State
for a non-compliance and its inability to comply with
the direction was also noticed to the following effect:
“(a) Lack of forces of carry out counter

insurgency operations and implementation of
NGT orders.
(b) The State Government proposes to approach

the Central Government for claiming an
exemption, in terms of para 12A(b) of the
VIth Schedule of the Constitution of India
and from the condition of previous approval
of the Central Government under the Mine and
Mineral Rule Regulation Act, 1957 in respect
of reconnaissance, prospecting and mining of
coal and from the operations of Coal Mines
Nationalisation Act.”
8. The Tribunal issued directions that the Additional
Secretary, North East in the Ministry of Home, Central
Government shall, within a period of two weeks, hold a
meeting with the Chief Secretary of the State of
Meghalaya and other concerned Authorities and consider
the proposal of the State of Meghalaya. The Tribunal
also expressed its disapproval for the conduct of the
State in not formulating appropriate Policy and
Guidelines. The Tribunal further observed that the
mining in the State cannot be permitted, unless

11
appropriate policy is prepared by the State Government.
9. The Tribunal also noticed that there is huge
environmental degradation and pollution of the water
in the State of Meghalaya and observed that serious
steps are required to be taken for cleaning polluted
waterbodies, with the above objective the Tribunal
authorised the State Government to collect 10% on the
market value of the coal in addition to the royally
payable to it. In this regard following directions were
issued:
“It is also undisputable that there has

been huge environmental degradation and
pollution of the waterbody in the State of
Meghalaya, because of this illegal,
unscientific mining. No one has even thought
of restoration of the area in question, to
bring to some extent, if not completely,
restoration of ecology and environment in
question. Serious steps are required to be
taken for cleaning polluted waterbodies and
ensure that no further pollution is caused
by this activity and the activity which would
be permitted to be carried on finally
including transportation of coal. On the
basis of `Polluter Pay Principle’. We direct
that the State Government shall in addition
to the royalty payable to it, shall also
collect 10% on the market value of the coal
for every consignment. Having heard the
learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
keeping in view the notifications of the
Central Government dated 10.05.2012 and that
12
of the State Government dated 22.06.2012, we

may notice that in the report of Comptroller
and Auditor General of India for the period
ending 31st March, 2013 under 7.5.18 of
Chapter 7 of which the invoice value of the
coal has been taken Rs. 4850/- per metric
tonne.
Thus, we direct that the State Government

shall in addition to the royalty payable to
it, also collect 10% of the said market value
of the coal per metric tonne from each
person. The amount so collected shall be
deposited in the account to be titled as
‘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.
This amount shall only be used for

restoration of environment and for necessary
remedial and preventive measures in regard
to environment and matters related thereto.”
10. Certain other directions were issued by the
Tribunal vide order dated 25.03.2015.
11. Order dated 10.05.2016 has been challenged by KA
Hima Nongstoin Land Owners, Coal Traders and Producers
Association. The NGT vide its order dated 23.12.2015
had permitted transportation of coal for the period
till 15.05.2016. By order dated 31.03.2016, NGT refused
to further extend the time for transportation and

13
directed that after 15.05.2016 all extracted coal shall
vest in the State. Aggrieved against order dated
31.03.2016 KA Hima Nongstoin Land Owners, Coal Traders
and Producers Association filed C.A.No.4793 of 2016
before this Court, which was disposed of by granting
liberty to the appellant to file application before the
NGT. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court
M.A.No.427 of 2016 was filed before the NGT. By order
dated 10.05.2016 applications, M.A. Nos.400 and 427 of
2016 were dismissed. By the same order the State of
Meghalaya was directed to place on record the exact
current quantity of coal and value thereof including
the status of the coal lying and mined anywhere in the
State of Meghalaya as on 01.04.2015 and the exact
quantity of coal lying as on 16.05.2016. The state was
also directed to submit its proposal as to how the
State shall deal with the coal that is vested in the
State primarily for the reasons that entire coal is
illegally extracted coal.
12. On 31.08.2018, the Tribunal noticing the earlier
proceedings also noted that few issues are pending

14
before this Court arising out of orders passed by the
Tribunal. In paragraph 10 of the order following has
been noticed:
“10. At this stage, we may note that

following issues are pending before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court arising out of orders
passed by this Tribunal:
i) Civil Appeal No(s). 5272/2016 titled

as Ka Hima Nongstoin Land Owners,
Coal Traders and Producers
Association Vs. All Dimasa Students
Union, Dima Hasao District Committee
and Ors., wherein following order was
passed on 21.09.2016:
“Having heard counsel for the parties,

it is directed that the petitioners, as
well as the respondents, who have mined
the coal, are permitted to transport the
coal on payment of royalty and other fees
as fixed by the National Green Tribunal
(for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and other
relevant status. The extracted coal can
be transported from 1st October, 2016
till 31st May, 2017. It is further
directed that no other extraction shall
take place in the meantime.
The finding of the Tribunal that the

coal is vested in the State on the ground
that it is illegally extracted coal,
shall be adverted to at the time of final
hearing. The miners shall keep the
accounts and if, ultimately, it is held
that the coal belongs to the State, they
will refund the amount with interest. The
quantum of interest shall be determined
at the time of final hearing. Needless
to say, these observations have been made
15
without prejudice to the contentions to

be raised by the learned counsel for the
parties. The tribunal can proceed with
regard to the other aspects which are
pending before it.”
The above order shows that question

whether coal is vested in the State is to be
gone into before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Thereafter, on 28.03.2018, by the said

order, time for transporting already
extracted coal was extended up to 31.05.2018
but it was clear that no further extraction
shall be allowed.
ii) Civil Appeal Diary No. 3067/2018

titled as Lber Laloo Vs. All Dimasa Students
Union, Dima Hasao District Committee and
Ors., raising the question whether ban on
mining can be continued. We are informed that
in the said matter, the issue of mining plan
has also been raised.”
13. The Tribunal further directed that ban on rat hole
mining shall continue subject to further orders of this
Court. Ban on transportation of extracted coal will
also continue subject to further orders. Following
directions were issued in paragraph 13:
“13. Accordingly, we direct that orders of

ban of rat-hole mining will continue, subject
to further orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Ban of transportation of the already
mined material will also continue subject to
further orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
The State of Meghalaya will be the
receiver/custodian of the available
extracted coal as on date, subject to further
16
orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If any

further coal not so far recorded in the
inventory is available, a separate inventory
may be made and if it is found that the
extraction was illegal, royalty in terms of
orders already passed may also be collected.
This may be determined by the Secretary of
Mining of the State of Meghalaya. While one
view is that there is extracted coal and not
accounted for, the other view put forward
that it is result of illegal mining. This
aspect may be gone into by the Secretary of
Mining, State of Meghalaya in the first
instance. The same be cross-checked by a
joint team of representatives of Central
Pollution Control Board and Indian School of
Mines, Dhanbad.”
14. The Tribunal also deliberated on restoration of
the environment and rehabilitation of the victims for
which funds were available. The Tribunal constituted a
committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, Former Judge
of the Gauhati High Court with representatives from
Central Pollution Control Board and Indian School of
Mines, Dhanbad. Paragraphs 14 to 28 of the order are
relevant in this context which are as follows:
“14. Only last question which remains is of

restoration of the environment and
rehabilitation of the victims for which funds
are available. We are of the view that for
this task, it will appropriate that we
constitute an independent Committee. This
Committee will be headed by Justice B.P.
Katakey, Former Judge of the Guwahati High
Court with representatives from Central
17
Pollution Control Board and Indian School of

Mines, Dhanbad.
15. The Committee will take the following

steps:
• Take stock of all actions taken so far in

this regard.
• Prepare time bound action plan to deal

with the issue and ensure its
implementation.
16. The Committee may requisition services of

such technical experts as may be necessary and
may also carry out visits to sites whenever
necessary. They will be entitled to all
logistic support for performing these
functions which shall be provided under the
directions of the Chief Secretary, Meghalaya.
17. The Committee may also set up website for

receiving and giving information on subject.
18. The Committee may also involve educational

institutions for awareness and feedback about
results.
19. All authorities concerned in the State of

Meghalaya shall cooperate and coordinate with
the Committee. The Committee can seek such
technical assistance as may be required from
any relevant authority.
20. The Chief Secretary, Meghalaya to provide

all facilities to said Committee to perform
its functions. The Committee may send its
periodical reports to the Tribunal by e-mail
at filing.ngt@gmail.com.
21. The Committee may assume its charge within

two weeks from today. The Committee may
prepare Action Plan which shall have targets
18
of ensuring compliance. It may meet at such

intervals as considered appropriate but twice
in every month and fix targets for compliance.
22. The Committee will be free to take up all

incidental issues. The committee will be free
to seek any further directions from this
Tribunal by e-mail.
23. The Chief Secretary of State of Meghalaya

may determine remuneration of the Chairman in
consultation with him and the Chief Secretary
of the State of Meghalaya will also provide
all logistic support including security if
needed for their proper functioning.
25. The Committee will be entitled to take the

help of the technical experts in execution of
this order. The Committee may frame its action
plan for implementation within one month from
today and implementation may be completed
within six months as far as possible. The
timelines may be laid down. A copy of the
action plan may be sent to this Tribunal by
e-mail at filing.ngt@gmail.com. Thereafter,
reports may be sent at least once in two
months. The Committee may also assess the
damage to the environment as well as to the
individuals as already suggested in the
Report.
27. The State of Meghalaya will make available

all the relevant records to the Committee for
the purpose. The State will also determine the
remuneration to be paid to the Chairman of the
Committee in consultation with him within one
month from today.
28. The Committee will be at liberty to take

technical assistance from any quarter which
may be facilitated by the State of Meghalaya.
The Committee may also supervise any issue
arising out of receivership/custodianship of
the already extracted coal, including any
19
environmental issues which any arise out of

storage of the extracted material and the
steps required to be taken for the purpose.
The Report of the Committee may be furnished

to this Tribunal by e-mail at
filing.ngt@gmail.com.
A copy of this order may be sent to all the

concerned authorities by e-mail for
compliance.
All pending matters will stand disposed of

in above terms.
List for consideration of the Report on 06th

March, 2019.”
15. Justice Katakey submitted its report before the
Tribunal on 02.01.2019. Committee’s various
proceedings which were part of the report were noticed
in detail by the NGT. In paragraph 21 of the order
following was noticed:
“21. Under issue number D, it was noted that

the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board
in its report in September, 1997 had noted
that unplanned and unscientific coal mining
activities were taking place. This had
achieved dangerous dimensions in the last two
decades creating ecological disturbance and
adverse environmental impacts. This showed
that though cognizance of the problem was
taken in the year 1997, the problem continues
even 20 years thereafter. The State Pollution
Control Board had, in the year 1997,
20
recommended steps to check illegal mining

including generation of awareness,
legislative measures, use of technology,
carrying out of study but none of the
recommendations were implemented even after
21 years.”
16. The Tribunal after considering the report of the
committee and other materials on record came to the
conclusion that the State of Meghalaya had failed to
perform its duties to act on the recommendation of the
report of the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board
submitted in the year 1997. The Tribunal opined that
interim amount be deposited towards restoration of the
environment. Paragraphs 31 to 33 are as follows:
“31. Paying capacity and the amount which may

act as deterrent to prevent further damage
is also well recognised. Net Present Value
of the ecological services foregone and cost
of damage to environment and pristine
ecology, the cost of illegal mined material,
and the cost of mitigation and restoration
are also relevant factors. The Committee may
go into these aspects to determine the final
figure.
32. We are satisfied that having regard to

the totality of factual situation emerging
from the record, damages required to be
recovered are not, prima facie, less than Rs.
100 Crores. Accordingly, by way of an interim
measure, we require the State of Meghalaya
to deposit Rs. 100 crores within two months
with the CPCB in this regard.
21
33. We have already noted the extent of

damage found and the value of the illegally
mined material, apart from clandestine mining
for which sufficient material is not
available. The State had collected, as noted
in the earlier order, royalty of Rs. 400
crores which by now must be higher figure.”
17. The State of Meghalaya has filed two appeals being
C.A.No.10720 of 2018 and C.A.No.2968 of 2019.
C.A.No.10720 of 2018 has been filed questioning the
order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the Tribunal by which
the Tribunal directed that order of the ban of rat-
hole mining will continue and further constituted
Justice B.P. Katakey committee to take steps for
restoration of the environment and rehabilitation of
the victims. The other Civil Appeal No.2968 of 2019
has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh
questioning the order dated 04.01.2019 by which State
of Meghalaya was directed to deposit interim amount of
Rs.100 crores towards restoration of the environment.
18. Against the same order dated 31.08.2018 two other
appeals have been filed being C.A.No.10611 of 2018 by
the State Coordination Committee of Coal Owners,
Miners and Dealers Forum and C.A.No.10907 of 2018 by

22
Garo Hills Autonomous District Council aggrieved by
the perpetual ban of coal mining by order dated
31.08.2018 without considering illegality of the ban
in the first place. The appellants are also aggrieved
by appointment of State Government receiver/custodian
of the extracted coal when there is no dispute of the
ownership of the coal and further the question of
vesting of the coal in the State is pending
consideration in this Court in C.A.No.5272 of 2016.
19. C.A.No.10907 of 2018 is filed by Garo Hills
Autonomous District Council which is aggrieved by the
order of the Tribunal dated 31.08.2018 by which it has
confirmed the ban on coal mining which was in force
for over four years and further direction by the
Tribunal to constitute a committee for the disposal of
funds in excess of Rs.400 crores. The appellants are
aggrieved by the above and alleged that the Tribunal
failed to consider that constituting the committee
without considering the roles and responsibilities of
the District Council has the effect of virtually
excluding the Council from issues concerning

23
administration of forests and lands which are within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Council. The ban on
coal mining has effectively closed the doors on a major
source of revenue for the functioning of the District
Council, which is empowered in terms of Sixth Schedule
of the Constitution to collect taxes.
20. C.A.No.5272 of 2016 by KA Hima Nongstoin Land
Owners, Coal Traders and Producers Association has
been filed against order dated 10.05.2016 by which
Miscellaneous Applications No.400 and 420 of 2016 were
dismissed. The appellants had prayed for modification
and clarification and/or recall of the final order
dated 31.03.2016 by which Tribunal directed for
vesting of the duly assessed already extracted coal
with the State of Meghalaya and refusing to extend the
time for transportation of the already extracted coal.
The appellants claim for propriety rights of its
members over such coal, which were mined as per
prevailing custom prior to 17.04.2014.
21. Now, remains appeal being Civil Appeal of
2019(@ Diary No.3067 of 2018) filed on behalf of the

24
Lber Laloo. The appellant has filed this appeal against
the order dated 25.03.2015. Aggrieved by the blanket
ban on mining activities imposed in the State of
Meghalaya by the NGT which, according to the appellant,
is adversely affecting the lives and livelihood of the
miners in the State of Meghalaya. As a result of ban
on coal mining large number of the families are
affected in the State of Meghalaya, who are dependent
for their livelihood on coal mining.
Submissions
22. We have heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior
counsel, Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel,
Shri Amit Kumar, Advocate General, for the State of
Meghalaya. We also heard Shri Ranjan Mukherjee
appearing for the State of Meghalaya. Shri Ranjit
Kumar, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
appellant in C.A. Diary No.3067 of 2018 and Shri Raju
Ramachandran, learned senior counsel, appearing for
the appellant in C.A.No.10907/2018. Shri Colin
Gonsalves, learned senior counsel has been heard as
amicus curiae. We have also heard learned counsel for

25
respondent No.1 in C.A. No.5272 of 2016 (who was the
applicant before the NGT). Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned
senior counsel has been heard for the private
respondents in C.A.No.5272 of 2016. Shri A.N.S.
Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General has
been heard for the Union of India. We have also heard
other learned counsel who were permitted to intervene
in the matter and raise various arguments in respect
of their different IAs.
23. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel led
the arguments on behalf of the State of Meghalaya.
Shri Naphade submits that jurisdiction of NGT
constituted under National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is
confined to Sections 14,15 and 16. Section 16 is not
attracted in the present case. Section 14 deals with
original jurisdiction of NGT and it takes within its
compass or all of civil cases where a substantial
question relating to environment (including
enforcement of any legal right relating to
environment) is involved and such question arises out
of the implementation of the enactments specified in

26
Schedule I. The jurisdiction depends upon two
conditions which are required to be satisfied
cumulatively and they are: (1) substantial question
which relates to environment and (2) implementation of
the enactments specified in Schedule I. It is submitted
that Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957(hereinafter referred to as “MMDR Act, 1957”)
not being specified in Schedule I, the National Green
Tribunal could not have exercised jurisdiction to
examine violation of MMDR Act, 1957. It is submitted
that the NGT committed error in holding that the coal
mining in State of Meghalaya is unregulated. The NGT
proceeded on erroneous premise that the Tribals of
Meghalaya cannot do coal mining without obtaining
lease from the State Government. It is submitted that
Tribals who are owners of the land are also owners of
the sub-soil and the minerals in the land. The land in
the State of Meghalaya was property of men and
villages. The Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills and Garo Hills
have different land tenure system of their own, which
does not provide for vesting of land or minerals in
the State right from pre-Independence period.

27
24. Shri Naphade submits that the ownership of
minerals vests with the owner of the land unless the
owner of the land is deprived of the same by some valid
process of law, for example, the provision contained
in Land Revenue Codes of different States, which
categorically state that the ownership of minerals
exclusively vests in the State Government. However, in
the State of Meghalaya, there exists no such law that
deprives the owner of the land from owning the minerals
beneath it.
25. Shri Naphade submits that under MMDR Act, 1957,
State has no legislative or executive power with regard
to coal, which is a major mineral. It can neither
exercise any jurisdiction of granting any mining lease
to the Tribals nor it has any jurisdiction to frame
any mining policy. It is submitted that the provisions
of the MMDR Act deal with lease and prospecting
licence. The Tribals of Meghalaya are owners of the
minerals located in their land. Since they are the
owners, there is no question of they being required to

28
obtain either a prospecting licence or a mining lease.
The concepts of lease and licence necessarily involve
minimum two parties to the transaction- in case of a
license, there has to be a licensor and licensee. The
owner of minerals cannot give licence or lease to
himself or grant a prospecting licence. The State is
not the owner of the minerals and, therefore, it cannot
on its own grant prospecting licence or lease as it
has no proprietary right in respect of such minerals.
State can neither be a licensor nor a lessor in such
situation.
26. Shri Naphade reiterates that the whole premise of
NGT that the coal mining in the State of Meghalaya is
unregulated is fully erroneous. Referring to north-
eastern area under which the State of Meghalaya was
established as full-fledged State, it is submitted
that administration of Tribal areas is to be governed
as per Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India and
various orders passed by the NGT directly interfered
in the administration of Tribal area which is vested
in the Autonomous District Councils. It is submitted

29
that NGT failed to consider the relevant statutory
matrix including the provisions of Sixth Schedule and
legislation framed by the Autonomous District
Councils. It is submitted that NGT has no jurisdiction
to constitute any committee for the purpose of
enforcing its orders. The constitution of committees
including constitution of Justice B.P. Katakey, former
Judge of the Gauhati High Court by the impugned order
dated 31.08.2018 is beyond the jurisdiction of NGT.
The constitution of the committee is interference with
the jurisdiction of Autonomous District Council. It is
further submitted that NGT has also no jurisdiction to
create any fund. The Tribunal by constituting the
committee and by constituting a fund has created a
parallel Government. The Tribunal not being a
constitutional court it cannot issue a continuous
mandamus. It is submitted that Tribunal although
issued several directions to the State of Meghalaya to
frame mining policy whereas the State has no
jurisdiction regarding framing of mining policy under
MMDR Act, 1957, the State is denuded with any
legislative powers with regard to regulation and

30
development of minerals, which have been declared by
the Union to have taken under its control. Referring
to EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 issued under
Environment Protection Act, 1986, he submitted that
environment clearance for mining was required only
when area of mining was more than five hectares. In
Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya, mining area
consists of small area which being not more than five
hectares, there was no requirement of obtaining an
environment clearance. He does not dispute that after
15.01.2016 by the EIA notification now the requirement
of area of being not more than five hectares having
been deleted environment clearance is required as on
date with regard to carrying mining operations. The
Tribals are dependent for their livelihood on coal
mining and, therefore, by complete ban on coal mining
with effect from 17.04.2014, large number of Tribals
are deprived from their livelihood and it is obligatory
for the State to espouse the cause of the Tribals, who
individually were not before the NGT. There being no
jurisdiction in the State of Meghalaya to grant mining
lease as per special nature of land tenure in the

31
Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya and further minerals
are not vested in the State of Meghalaya, the NGT erred
in holding that State has failed to carry on its
obligation and failed to check coal mining in the State
of Meghalaya, it is Central Government which have all
jurisdiction and authorities under Act, 1957 to make
necessary Rules and issue necessary directions and
State alone cannot be blamed. Referring to Minerals
Concession Rules, 1960 framed under Section 13 of MMDR
Act, 1957, it is submitted that even though Rule 13(f)
refers to mining application with regard to land of
which minerals vest in persons other than the
Government, he submits that this provision shall not
apply for owner when he himself carries on the mining,
the question of taking lease may arise when owner of
the land give land to some other person to mine the
minerals.
27. Shri Naphade, however, submits that the provisions
of the Mines Act, 1952 are applicable and have to be
complied with. He referred to the Mineral Conservation

32
and Development Rules, 1988, where cess can be charged
by the State.
28. Shri Amrendra Sharan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State of Meghalaya in C.A. No.2968
of 2019 submits that NGT vide impugned order dated
04.01.2019 has directed the State of Meghalaya to
deposit Rs. 100 crores as an interim measure which is
wholly unsustainable. The NGT has passed the order
dated 04.01.2019 relying on first interim report of
the Committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey, former
Judge of the Gauhati High Court. The constitution of
committee was itself beyond the jurisdiction of the
NGT. Shri Sharan adopts the submissions made by Shri
Naphade and in addition to those submissions, submits
that order dated 04.01.2019 has been passed in
violation of principles of natural justice since no
opportunity was given to the State of Meghalaya to
respond to the report of the committee used against it
for imposing a penalty of Rs.100 crores. The order
impugned has been made by the NGT contrary to the
findings recorded in the report of the committee of

33
Justice B.P. Katakey. The impugned order dated
04.01.2019 has been passed by the NGT without any
assessment of damage of environment whatsoever. The
Tribunal also did not notice its earlier order dated
25.03.2015 wherein penalty has already been imposed on
actual polluters, i.e., coal miners and transporters
based on Polluters Pay Principle for which Fund,
namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and
Restoration Fund (hereinafter referred to as “MEPRF”)
has already been created. The NGT passed order dated
04.01.2019 without considering the concerned statutory
provisions to determine as to who is responsible for
implementation of the mining statutes and the
environmental legislation in the State of Meghalaya.
The state of Meghalaya has limited source of revenue
and putting extra burden of Rs.100 Crores shall shatter
the economy of the state.
29. Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel,
in support of appellant, Garo Hills Autonomous
District Council in Civil Appeal No. 10907 of 2018
submits that the NGT while passing order dated

34
31.08.2018 has ignored the Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution. By order dated 31.08.2018, the NGT could
not have constituted the committee. Referring to Sixth
Schedule of the Constitution, Shri Raju Ramachandran
submits that under para 2, District Councils, Regional
Councils have been constituted and also Hills District
Council is a Council created under the Sixth Schedule
of the constitution framed under Article 244(2) and
Article 275(1) of the Constitution of India. The
constitution of committee by the NGT has virtually
affected District Autonomous Council from issues
concerning administration of forests and lands within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the council. The ban of
coal mining has deprived the appellant from major
source of Revenue. Under para 8 of Sixth Schedule,
Autonomous District Council is entitled to share the
Revenue from minerals royalty collected by the State
Government. The impugned order has been passed without
hearing and taking note of existence of shareholders
or stake of shareholders. Shri Raju Ramachandran
further submits that NGT has disposed of OA
Nos.73/2014, 13/2014 and 186/2014 by order dated

35
31.08.2018 after this, it could not have passed any
order.
30. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of
C.A. No. 5272 of 2016 submits that the appeal filed by
the appellant is only for seeking protection of the
proprietary rights of its members over the coal which
was mined as per prevailing custom prior to 17.04.2014.
It is submitted that by order dated 31.03.2016, NGT
had taken the view that all coal after 2016 shall vest
in the State. The appellant had previously approached
this Court by filing C.A.No.4793 of 2016 against the
order dated 31.03.2016 wherein this Court granted the
liberty to the appellant to approach the NGT for filing
application for clarification of the order. The
application of the appellant for clarification was
rejected by the NGT without giving any reason. The NGT
had overreached the scope of its jurisdiction and
authority in directing for vesting of the coal
extracted by the members from their land in the State.
It is further submitted that MMDR Act, 1957 was enacted
by the Parliament to regulate the mining activities in

36
the country which does not in any manner purport to
declare the proprietary rights to the State in the
minerals.
31. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel in
support of C.A.(D) No.3067 of 2018 submits that the
Tribunal committed error in stopping the entire coal
mining in the State of Meghalaya. Referring to Section
15 of NGT Act, 2010, Shri Ranjit Kumar submits that
relief, compensation and restitution can be granted as
provided in Section 15. It is submitted that by
stopping entire coal mining from 17.04.2014 the
livelihood of appellant and several similarly situated
persons had been adversely affected. It is submitted
that the Tribunal ought to have lifted the ban. Order
impugned infringes right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. The Tribunal has acted beyond
its power under Section 15 of NGT Act, 2010. The
finding of the Tribunal on mining that in the State of
Meghalaya mining is unregulated is not correct,
whereas, a miner is required to get registered and it
has to pay royalty fixed by the State of Meghalaya.

37
32. Shri Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.2, State of Meghalaya in
C.A.No.3067(D) of 2019 submits that even if rat-hole
mining has been banned, all mining cannot be banned.
He submits that the Meghalaya Mines and Minerals
Policy, 2012 has been formulated with an aim to
facilitate systematic, scientific and planned
utilisation of mineral resources and to streamline
mineral based development of the State. The State of
Meghalaya has been created to follow the customary
rights and practices of coal mining in the Tribal areas
of Meghalaya. In this regard letter of Central
Government dated 02.07.1987 has also been relied. The
draft guidelines for coal mining activities in the
State has also been framed in the year 2015. Although,
NGT has directed Ministry of Environment and Forests
to look into the matter but no objection has been
communicated to the State except certain miner
discrepancies.
38
33. Shri A.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the Union of India submits that
provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 are also applicable in
the Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya. The request
submitted by the Government of Meghalaya for issuance
of Presidential Notification under Paragraph 12A(b) of
the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India for
exempting the State of Meghalaya from certain
provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 has not been acceded
to. The Office Memorandum dated 12.03.2019 issued by
the Government of India, Ministry of Coal has been
referred to and relied by the learned Additional
Solicitor General in this regard. It is submitted that
no prior approval for mining rights in respect of area
containing coal has been given under MMDR Act, 1957 by
Ministry of Coal, Government of India for the State of
Meghalaya.
34. It is submitted that it is entirely impermissible
for the appellant or any other private person to claim
any rights for illegal or unlawful mining of coal in
derogation of the law in force in the State of

39
Meghalaya. It is further submitted that generation of
revenue would not be a ground for claiming permission
to carry out mining in contravention/derogation of the
law in force. A draft guideline submitted by the State
Government of Meghalaya by letter dated 24.09.2015 was
examined by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India
on which decision was taken that the guidelines
submitted by the Government of Meghalaya were not in
conformity with the existing statutory provisions of
MMDR Act, 1957. Hence, the State of Meghalaya may
reframe the guidelines in conformity with MMDR Act,
1957 and submit. In the revised proposal dated
25.07.2016 the State of Meghalaya had proposed certain
amendments in MMDR Act, 1957 and exemption from the
application of the MMDR Act, 1957 through a
Presidential notification under Para 12A(b) of the
Sixth Schedule. It had already been communicated by
Central Government that exemption from applicability
of MMDR Act, 1957 cannot be acceded to.
35. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel,
appearing as amicus curiae, has raised various

40
submissions. Learned amicus curiae has submitted a
Report in two volumes titled “CURSE OF UNREGULATED
COAL MINING IN MEGHALAYA”, a citizen’s Report from
Meghalaya 01/12/2018. In Volume I under the head
‘INTRODUCTION’ the Report states:
“INTRODUCTON
Meghalaya has a resource curse. Although, we
have been endowed with abundant forests and
minerals, these resources have not
contributed to the good of our society,
because they have been extracted without any
regulation or concern for the larger common
good. This unregulated, narrow, self-
interest based use of natural resources has
exacerbated socio-economic inequality,
destroyed the environment, heightened
criminality, and torn as under our
egalitarian tribal social fabric.
It also violates Section 39(b) of the

Constitution which provides that the
ownership and control of the material
resources of the community should be so
distributed so as to best subserve the common
good and, therefore, the State cannot
distribute the material resource of the
community in any way it likes. The process
of distribution must be guided by the
constitutional principles including the
doctrine of equality and larger public good.
The National Green Tribunal’s landmark order

regarding Unregulated and illegal coal mining
in our state therefore came as a wakeup call
for Meghalaya society at large. This order
has been criticised and appealed against by
a small section of locals most of who are
coal mine owners, transporters, politicians
and administrators who have ‘illegally’
41
benefitted out of this unregulated mining and

who want things to get back to business as
usual. Coal Miners and politicians who are
miners, truck owners, weigh bridge operators
etc. have been filed appeals with the
Honourable Supreme Court, asking the Hon’ble
Court to rescind NGT orders so that mining
can once again begin.”
36. Learned amicus curiae submits that State of
Meghalaya still continues with the illegal mining.
Shri Gonsalves submits that Section 4 of MMDR Act,
1957 by use of words “no person” clearly prohibits
mining operation without obtaining mining lease in
accordance with the Act. Referring to Section 5, he
submits that for Schedule A minerals permission of
Central Government is required which has not been
obtained. Shri Gonsalves submits that for mining, the
leases are required and permission be sought. He
submits that there are 53 mines per kilometre in Tribal
areas of Meghalaya. He submits that all extracted coal
which is claimed to be lying assessed or unassessed in
the State of Meghalaya is result of illegal mining and
Coal India Ltd. be directed to take over the entire
coal.
42
37. Shri Gonsalves has also referred to various
reports of Comptroller and Auditor General of India
which has been brought on record in Volume II – A
Citizen’s Report from Meghalaya 06/01/2019.
38. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel,
appearing on behalf of private respondent in Civil
Appeal No.5272 of 2016 has refuted the submissions
raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Shri
Nidhesh Gupta submits that as per Entry 54 of List I
regulation of mines and minerals development has been
declared by the Parliament under MMDR Act, 1957.
Section 2, by declaration as contained in MMDR Act,
1957, the State Government is denuded of all
legislative and executive powers under Entry 23 of
List II read with Article 162 of the Constitution of
India. Section 4 sub-section (1) makes it clear that
no person can undertake any reconnaissance,
prospecting or mining operations in any area, except
under and in accordance with the terms and conditions
of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence.
As per Section 5 sub-section (1) A State Government

43
shall not grant a reconnaissance permit, prospecting
licence or mining lease to any person unless such
person is an Indian National and satisfies such
conditions as may be prescribed. The proviso to
Section 5(1) provides that in respect of any mineral
specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule,
no reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or
mining lease shall be granted except with the previous
approval of the Central Government. The contention on
behalf of the State of Meghalaya that the MMDR Act,
1957 does not apply to State of Meghalaya is based on
an erroneous reading of the statutory provisions.
39. Section 13 empowers the Central Government to make
rules for regulating the grant of reconnaissance
permits, prospecting licences and mining leases in
respect of land in which minerals vest in the
Government and also in respect of any land in which
the minerals vest in a person other than the
Government. In exercise of powers under Section 13 of
the Act, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 have been
framed.
44
40. Chapter V deals with the procedure for obtaining
a prospecting licence or a mining lease in respect of
a land in which the minerals vest in a person other
than the Government. The said Chapter contains
provisions from Rule 41 to Rule 52. Rule 41 stipulates
that the provisions of the said Chapter apply only to
the grant of prospecting licences and mining leases in
respect of land in which minerals vest exclusively in
a person other than the Government. Therefore, mining
leases in respect of land where minerals vest in a
person other than the Government are covered by the
said Chapter and matters concerning grant of
prospecting licences and mining leases are detailed
therein.
41. As per Section 23C, the State Government is
empowered to make Rules for preventing illegal mining,
transportation and storage of minerals. No Rules have
been framed by the State of Meghalaya under Section
23C. The contention on behalf of State of Meghalaya
that MMDR Act applies only in the cases where minerals

45
vest in Government, therefore, MMDR Act does not apply
in the State of Meghalaya, is completely misconceived.
42. Learned counsel also relies on the stand taken by
the Union of India in the Status Report dated
24.07.2018. Shri Gupta submits that approximate price
of coal is Rs.10,000/- per metric ton. Referring to
notice inviting tenders by the State of Meghalaya, it
is submitted that amount of Rs.1,000/- per metric ton
was contemplated. It is submitted that selling the
coal on much low price is causing loss to Revenue as
well as loss to other stakeholders. The allegations
have been by Shri Gupta that sale of coal at such low
price raises suspicion of under hand dealing. It is
submitted that legal position be laid down by this
Court and the orders of the NGT be upheld.
43. In addition to above, we have also heard several
learned counsels who have filed IA for impleadment and
IAs for direction including direction to transport
coal belonging to them. We have heard Shri Siddharth

46
Luthra, Shri R. Basant, Smt. Meenakshi Arora, Senior
Advocates and other learned counsel.
44. On 10.05.2019, we had passed an order permitting
transportation of coal to the extent of 75,050 metric
ton which was balance quantity from 1,76,655 metric
ton of coal, for transportation of which this Court
had passed order on 04.12.2018. The order dated
10.05.2019 permitted transportation of the coal, for
which Transport challans had already been issued after
04.12.2018 under the terms and conditions as indicated
in the order dated 10.05.2019. In the order dated
10.05.2019, we had also held that applicants need not
be impleaded, however, they were permitted to
intervene in the matter.
45. The counsel appearing for different applicants
claim transportation of different quantity of coal
which according to them has now been assessed. Still
some of the applicants claims transportation of the
coal which is yet to be assessed. In different
applications, different quantities are claimed to be

47
transported which according to the applicant is lying
in different districts of the State of Meghalaya.
I.A.No.22981 of 2019 and I.A. No. 22991 of 2019 are
applications by an applicant claiming to be auction
purchaser. Learned counsel submitted that he was
declared highest bidder, he pleaded for extension of
time to deposit the amount but after the order dated
15.01.2019, he was not permitted to transport the coal
nor he could deposit the balance auction money.
46. Shri Ranjan Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing
for State of Meghalaya has filed an additional
affidavit of Commissioner and Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya, Mining and Geology Department
dated 06.04.2019. In the affidavit, it is stated that
in pursuance of the order of NGT dated 31.08.2018, the
State Government vide notification dated 14.09.2018
has constituted a team to assist the Commissioner and
Secretary to deal with the directives given in para 13
of the order of the NGT. It is submitted that in
pursuance of the order of the State Government dated
14.09.2018, the members of the committee have carried

48
out assessment of unassessed extracted coal appearing
in the datasheet of inventory in different hills
district. The report dated 04.10.2018 of Deputy
Commissioner, west Khasi hills, is filed as Annexure
A-3, containing the statement of unassessed extracted
coal has been brought on record. Another report dated
22.10.2018 and 16.11.2018 of west Khasi hills district
containing the statement of assessment of unassessed
extracted coal has been brought on record. By report
dated 12.11.2018 of Deputy Commissioner, South west
Khasi hills, datasheet of coal inventory has been
brought on the record. Report dated 30.10.2018, Deputy
Commissioner, South Garo hills, has also been brought
on record. There were reports referring to different
assessment carried out by the committee according to
the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the
Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of
Meghalaya, the total quantity of coal stock which has
now been assessed in different reports stands at
32,56,715 metric ton.
47. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
State of Meghalaya that above assessment of coal has

49
been also verified by technical committees appointed
by the State of Meghalaya. Certain reports of technical
committees have also been brought on the record along
with the affidavit.
48. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned Amicus Curiae has
challenged the assessment made by the committees
appointed by the State Government as well as
verification by technical committee report. It is
submitted by Shri Gonsalves that report of technical
committee wants to undo what has been done in the
proceedings before the tribunal and this Court.
Learned Amicus Curiae submits that for transportation,
five extensions were granted by NGT and four extensions
were granted by this Court. Shri Gonsalves referred to
Katakey committee report in support of his
submissions.
49. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel, has
also refuted the claim of the different applicants as
well as the steps taken by the State of Meghalaya in
assessing the coal and verifying the same by technical

50
committee. Shri Gupta submits that the coal which is
now claimed to be assessed is nothing but illegally
extracted coal. It is submitted that in pursuance of
several orders passed by NGT and this Court substantial
transportation of coal has been permitted, still the
enormous quantity of coal is claimed which is nothing
but an excuse to obtain an order of transportation of
such illegally mined coal. It is submitted that State
of Meghalaya is hand in glove with illegal miners.
Shri Gupta submits that the cost of winning coal by
rat hole mining is negligible and after payment of
royalty of Rs.675/- and Rs.485/- towards Meghalaya
Environment Protection and Restoration Fund i.e. total
payment of Rs.1160/-, the coal is transported. The
market price of the coal is approximately Rs.10,000/-
per metric ton. The claim of different applicants with
regard to unassessed coal is false. It is submitted
that all illegally mined coal should be vested in the
State and no permission of transport as prayed by the
different applicants be granted by this Court. Learned
senior advocate submits that all applications praying
for different directions deserve to be rejected.

51
50. Learned counsel for the parties in support of
their respective submissions have placed reliance on
various judgments of this Court which shall be referred
to while considering the submissions of the parties.
51. From the submissions of the parties as noted above
and the materials on record in these appeals following
points arise for consideration.
52. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. 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?
2. 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?
3. Whether for mining the minerals from privately
owned/community owned land in hills districts of
Meghalaya, obtaining a mining lease is a statutory

52
requirement under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960?
4. 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?
5. 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?
6. Whether the power to allot land for mining
purposes is vested in Autonomous District
Councils?
7. Whether the order of National Green Tribunal dated
17.04.2014 directing for complete ban on mining
is unsustainable?
8. Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the
State of Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to

53
be vacated/modified in the interest of State and
Tribals?
9. 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?
10. Whether the NGT committed error in directing for
constitution of fund, namely, Meghalaya
Environment Protection and Restoration Fund?
11. 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?
12. 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?
54
13. 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?
14. 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?
53. Now we proceed to consider the above points in
seriatim.
Point No.1
54. The State of Meghalaya submits that NGT while
imposing ban on mining and by forming committee and
creating a “Meghalaya Environment Protection and
Restoration Fund” has gone beyond its jurisdiction as
conferred on it by NGT Act, 2010. The Tribunal has no
inherent jurisdiction, its jurisdiction flow from
Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act.

55
55. It is relevant to notice few provisions of NGT
Act, 2010 to comprehend the jurisdiction vested with
the Tribunal. The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
was enacted to provide for the effective and
expeditious disposal of cases relating to
environmental protection and conservation of forests
and other natural resources including enforcement of
any legal right relating to environment and giving
relief and compensation for damages to persons and
property and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. Section 2 is definitions. Section
2(c)defines environment in the following manner:
“2(c) "environment" includes water, air and

land and the inter-relationship, which exists
among and between water, air and land and
human beings, other living creatures, plants,
micro-organism and property;
56. Section 2(m) defines substantial question relating
environment which is to the following effect:
“2(m) "substantial question relating to

environment" shall include an instance
where,— (i) there is a direct violation of a
specific statutory environmental obligation
by a person by which,— (A) the community at
large other than an individual or group of
individuals is affected or likely to be
affected by the environmental consequences;
or (B) the gravity of damage to the
56
environment or property is substantial; or

(C) the damage to public health is broadly
measurable; (ii) the environmental
consequences relate to a specific activity
or a point source of pollution;”
57. Chapter III of the Act deals with jurisdiction,
powers and proceedings of the Tribunal. Sections 14
and 15 which are relevant in the present case are as
follows:
“14. Tribunal to settle disputes.—(1) The

Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all
civil cases where a substantial question
relating to environment (including
enforcement of any legal right relating to
environment), is involved and such question
arises out of the implementation of the
enactments specified in Schedule I.
1. Ins. by Act 7 of 2017, s. 182 (w.e.f. 26-

5-2017).
(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes
arising from the questions referred to in
sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and
pass order thereon.
(3) No application for adjudication of

dispute under this section shall be
entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made
within a period of six months from the date
on which the cause of action for such dispute
first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is

satisfied that the applicant was prevented
by sufficient cause from filing the
application within the said period, allow it
57
to be filed within a further period not

exceeding sixty days.
15. Relief, compensation and restitution.—
(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,—
(a) relief and compensation to the victims

of pollution and other environmental
damage arising under the enactments
specified in the Schedule I (including
accident occurring while handling any
hazardous substance);
(b) for restitution of property damaged;
(c) for restitution of the environment for

such area or areas, as the Tribunal
may think fit.
(2) The relief and compensation and

restitution of property and environment
referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of
sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the
relief paid or payable under the Public
Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
(3) No application for grant of any

compensation or relief or restitution of
property or environment under this section
shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless
it is made within a period of five years from
the date on which the cause for such
compensation or relief first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is

satisfied that the applicant was prevented
by sufficient cause from filing the
application within the said period, allow it
to be filed within a further period not
exceeding sixty days.
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the

damage to public health, property and
58
environment, divide the compensation or

relief payable under separate heads specified
in Schedule II so as to provide compensation
or relief to the claimants and for
restitution of the damaged property or
environment, as it may think fit.
(5) Every claimant of the compensation or

relief under this Act shall intimate to the
Tribunal about the application filed to, or,
as the case may be, compensation or relief
received from, any other court or authority.”
58. The submission which has been pressed by the State
is that neither MMDR Act, 1957 nor Mines Act, 1952 is
prescribed in Schedule I of the Act, hence, coal mining
is not within the purview of Schedule I and not within
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The submission
further is that for applicability of Section 14 both
the component of sub-section (1) of Section 14 that
(i) a substantial question relating to environment and
(ii) such question arises out of the implementation of
the enactments specified in Schedule I has to be
satisfied.
59. It is relevant to notice that before the NGT no
such plea was taken by the State of Meghalaya or any
of the parties questioning the jurisdiction of the
NGT. However, the issue being a jurisdictional issue,

59
we have permitted the learned counsel for the appellant
to raise the issue. The NGT took cognizance when
application, O.A.No.73 of 2014 on 17.04.2014 was
admitted and order was issued. The jurisdiction of the
Tribunal to entertain O.A.No.73 of 2014 has to be found
out from the case set up and pleadings in O.A.No.73 of
2014 for which we need to scrutinise the application.
O.A.No.73 of 2014 has been brought on record as
Annexure - A3 in C.A.No.5272 of 2016. The application
was filed by one All Dimasa Students Union Dima Hasao
District Committee. In the application following were
the respondents:
1. The State of Meghalaya through the

Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment
Department, Government of Meghalaya,
Shillong. 2. The Chairperson, State
Pollution Control Board, Meghalaya,
Shillong. 3. The State of Assam through the
Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment
Department Government of Assam, Dispur. 4.The
Chairperson, State Pollution Control Board,
Assam, Dispur. 5. The Central Pollution
Control Board, Parvesh Bhawan, East Arjun
Nagar, Delhi – 110032 through its
Chairperson. 6. North Easter Electric Power
Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman and
Managing Director Brooklyn Compound, Lower
New Colony, Shillong – 793003. Meghalaya.
60
60. Paragraph 3 of the application states the case of
the applicant and facts in brief. Paragraph 3 and (I)
to (VI) are as follows:
“3.The Applicant above named beg to

present the present Application to bring
to the notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal about
the adverse impact of unscientific
opencast mining operations being still
undertaken in the Jaintia Hills in
Meghalaya on the ecology and socio-economy
of the concerned area including Dima Hasao
District of Assam. It is stated that the
Acid Mine Drainage (for short (AMD')
generated from the aforesaid mining
operations has resulted in making the
water of the river Kopili (an inter-state
river flowing through the State of Meghalaya
and Assam) and its tributaries highly
acidic which in turn has not only caused
serious far reaching damage to the
environment, water bodies, soil,
agriculture, economy, and industry of the
concerned area but also resulted in
causing erosion/corrosion of the critical
underwater Hydro Power Equipments of the
Kopili Hydro-Electric Project (for short
`KHEP') of the North-Eastern Electric
Power Corporation Ltd (for short `NEEPC0')
situated in Umrongso, Dima Hasao,
District of Assam in as much as the
said acidic water is ultimately led to the
reservoirs of the said project.
FACTS IN BRIEF
I. That the Applicant is the Secretary of
the Dima Hasao Students Association and
filing the present Petition in a
representative capacity to espouse the
cause of the people of Dima Hasao,
Assam who are constantly and
continuously facing the adverse affect
of the afore said illeg al activitie s
i n t h e S t a t e o f Meghalaya.
II. That the Kopili River is an inter-
state river in North-East India that
flows through the States of Meghalaya
and Assam and is the largest south bank
tributary of the river Brahmaputra in
61
Assam, The Kopili river originates from

the black mountains of Lum Bah-bo Bah-
Kong in Meghalaya and flows north-west
into the Brahmaputra Valley in Assam.
The said river demarcates the Jaintia
Hills in Meghalaya and Dirria Hasao in
Assam. The river flows for a total
length of 290 kms and has a catchment
area of 16, 420 Kms.
III. That the Kopili Hydro-Electric
Project (KHEP) of NEEPCO (a Government
of India undertaking)is one of the
pioneering Hydro-Electric Project in the
North Eastern Region of India. The Kopili
Hydro-Electric Plant is a 275 MW
storage type hydro electric plant
consisting of two dams which have
created two reservoirs namely Kopili
reservoir is used in the Khandong
powerhouse through a 2759 metre tunnel
to generate power. The tail water from
this powerhouse is led to the Umrong
reservoir is used in Kopili powerhouse
through a 5473 metre tunnel to generate
power. Although, the dam, powerhouse and
residential colony of. kopili Hydro
Electric Planer (KHEP) are located in
the Dima Hasao District (formerly known
as North Cachar Hills District) of
Assam, the catchment and reservoirs are
spread in two states namely Meghalaya
and Assam. It is further stated that
the Kopili River and its tributaries
feed water to the reservoirs of the project. The
Kharkor is a major tributary of river Kopili
and drains a vast area of Jaintia Hills
Districts of Meghalaya. The Jaintia
Hills being well known for coal mining
areas is contributing acidic water in
the form of Acid Mine Drainage (AMD)
to the river Kharkor through its
different tributaries such as Urn Pai,
Myntriang, Urn Ropang, Sarbang, Mostem
62
etc. as these streams drain through

the active and inactive coal mining
areas of Jaintia Hills. The acidic
water finally reaches to Khandong and
Umrong reservoirs of KHEP. As a result,
the water of the reservoirs has become
highly acidic. The water pollution in
streams of catchment area varies from
brownish to reddish orange. The same
polluted water through various
tributaries of rivers Kharkor and
Kopili is perpetually reaching to the
reservoirs of the KHEP. As a result, the
water of reservoirs has become highly
acidic. In recent years, it has been
found that acidity of reservoir water
is a major threat to equipments and
machinery due to corrosion/metal
decay and erosion. Components such as
cooling water header pipe, Bends,
throttling valves, pressure equalizer
pipe of turbine etc. made up of
different metals and alloys are
getting severely affected and
incurring high maintenance cost.
IV. That the said adverse impact of the

aforesaid mining operation which has
not only affected the ecology and
socio-economy of
the area but also severely affected
the generation of hydro-electricity at
the Kopili Hydro-Electric Plant has been
subject matter of various studies. In
fact, a detailed project report of
pilot project for remediation of Acid
Mine Drainage (AMD) in the catchment
of Kopili River at the upstream of
Kopili Hydro Electric Plant (KHEP),
Umrongso, Dima Hasao, Assam was d o n e
by Dr. O.P.Singh, Professor,
D e p a r t m e n t o f Environmental Studies,
North-Eastern Hills University,
Shillong, Meghalaya. Similarly, a
63
detailed article based on detailed

investigation by Shri Pankaj Sharma and
others was published under the heading
"Acid mine discharge — Challenges met in
a hydro power project" in the
International Journal of
Environmental Sciences, Volume I,
No.6, 2011. Both the aforesaid
publications gives an in depth
analysis of the aforesaid problem as
well as suggests remedial measures to
improve the situation. However, it is
stated that no proper and effective
remedial measures have been taken by the
concerned authorities / State
Respondents to abort the aforesaid
menace and the ill-effect of the same are
still continuing and the same are being
constantly faced by the innocent citizens
/ water bodies etc of the area including
the people of Dima Hasao district of
Assam. Copies of the detailed project
report of pilot project for remediation of
Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) in the catchment
of Kopili River at the upstream of
Kopili Hydro Electric Plant (KHEP),
Umrongso, Dima Hasao, Assam and the
article published under the heading "Acid
mine discharge — Challenges met in a hydro
power project" in the International Journal
of Environmental Sciences, Volume I,
No.6, 2011 are annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE-P/1 & P-2
respectively. The ill-effect of the
aforesaid operations has also been the
subject matter of news items in various
newspapers including one published by
the Assam Tribune on June, 20, 2012 under
the heading "Concern over contamination
of Kopili Water" and another one
published in the Telegraph on
20.06.2013 under the heading "Two
Kopili power units shut down — Mining
in Jaintia Hills affects machines".
64
Copies of the news items published in

the Assam Tribune dated 20.06.2012 and
the Telegraph dated 20.06.2013 are
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-
P/3 & P-4 respectively.”
61. In paragraph 3(V) the appellant has extracted a
report of one Dr. O.P. Singh, Professor, North-Eastern
Hills University, Shillong, Meghalaya. Certain
paragraphs of report stated that Acid Mine
Drainage(AMD) is the greatest environmental problem of
coal industry and main source of water pollution in
and around mining areas. The report mentioned that AMD
degrades the water quality of the area in terms of
lowering the pH of the surrounding water resources and
increasing the level of total suspended solids, total
dissolved solids and some heavy metals. Following is
the part of the paragraph 4.1.4 of the report which is
extracted in paragraph 3(V):
"4.1.4 Impact of AMD on Environment, Socio-

economy and Industry
Impact on Environment and Water Resources:

Acid mine drainage is the greatest
environmental problem of coal mining
industry and main source of water
pollution in and around mining areas. The
influx of untreated AMD into streams
severely degrades both water quality and
65
aquatic habitat turning water unfit for

desired uses and often producing an
environment devoid of most aquatic life.
AMD degrades the water quality of the area
in terms of lowering the pH of the
surrounding water resources and increasing the level
of total suspended solids, total dissolved
solids and some heavy metals. Acidity and
high concentration of SO42; iron and other
metals prove to be toxic and corrosive to
most aquatic animals and plants. Precipitate
of iron hydroxide increases the load of
suspended solids which impair light
penetration and visibility resulting into
low productivity and disruption of
normal functioning of the contaminated
aquatic ecosystem. AMD can also be toxic to
vegetation when discharged to the shallow
soil water zones and wetlands (Van Green et
al., 1999; Singh and Agrawal, 2004; Gosh,
1991).
Aquatic communities of rivers and

streams comprise of phytoplanktoris,
periphyton, macrophytes, zooplanktons,
invertebrates and vertebrate species. They
play important role in normal functioning
of the aquatic ecosystem and are
indicative of good health of water bodies.
Generally, a variety of species with
representatives of almost all insect
orders, including a high diversity of
insects belonging to the taxonomic orders of
Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera
(stoneflies), and Trichoptera
(caddisflies) commonly referred to as EPT
taxa. Any physical, chemical or
biological change in water bodies affects
one or all species and disturbs the normal
functioning of the aquatic ecosystem.
Like many other pollutants, AMID
contamination causes a reduction in the
diversity and total numbers, or abundance,
66
of these aquatic communities including

benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, etc. As
a result, the community structure is altered
and water bodies affected by AMD possess a
lower percentage of EPT taxa ( C a m p b e l l e t
al., 20 00). Moderate AMD contam inati on
eliminates the more sensitive species
whereas severely contaminated conditions
are characterized by dominance of cert a in
taxonomic representatives of pollution
t o l e r a n t organisms.
As a consequence of depletion of aquatic

invertebrates, the fishes do not get adequate
supply of food and suffer indirectly from AMD
contamination AMD also has direct effect on
fishby causing various physiological
disturbances. However, the primary cause of
fish death in acid waters is loss of sodium
ions from the blbod. Less availability of
oxygen to the cells and tissues leads to
anoxia and death as acid water increases the
permeability of fish gills to water,
adversely affecting the gill function.
Severe anoxia occurs below pH 4.2. Low H
that is not directly lethal may adversely
affect fish growth rates and reproduction.”
62. Further, paragraph 4.2.3 of the report dealt with
coal mining in Jaintia Hills and paragraph 4.2.4 dealt
with impact of coal mining in Jaintia Hills and
paragraph 4.2.5 dealt with degradation of water
quality due to coal mining. Paragraphs 4.2.3, 4.2.4,
4.2.5 and 4.2.6 which were extracted in O.A.No.73 of
2014 are produced as below:

67
“4.2.3 Coal Mining in Jaintia Hills
Extraction of coal has been taking place in

all three regions, however, 'major production
occurs in Jaintia Hills. The mining activity
in Jaintia Hills is a small scale venture
controlled by individuals who own the
land. Primitive mining method commonly
known as 'rat-hole' mining is in
practice in Meghalaya. In this method the land
is first cleared by cutting and removing the
ground vegetation and then digging pits
ranging from 5 to 100 m2 into the ground to
reach the coal seam. Thereafter, tunnels are
made into the seam sideways to extract the
coal which is brought into the pit by using
a conical basket or a wheel barrow
manually. Coal seams are reached by
excavating the side edge of the hill slopes
and then coal is extracted through a
horizontal tunnel. The coal from the tunnel
or pit is taken out and dumped on nearby un-
mined area, from where it is carried to the
larger dumping places near highways for its
trade and transportation. Finally, the coal
is carried by trucks to the larger dumping
places near highways for its trade and
transportation. Entire road sides in and
around mining areas are used for piling of
coal which is a major source of air, water
and soil pollution. Off road movement of
trucks and other vehicles in the area
causes further damage to the ecology of the
area.
Every year new areas are brought under

mining and area under coal mining in Jaintia
Hills is increasing day-by-day as shown in
Figure 4,5."
"4.2.4 I mp ac t o f Co a l M in in g in J ai nt ia
H i ll s an d Beyond
Mining operation, undoubtedly has
brought wealth and employment opportunity
68
in the area, but simultaneously has led to

extensive environmental degradation and
erosion of traditional values in the
society. Environmental problems associated
with mining have been felt severely because
of the region's fragile ecosystems and
richness of biological and cultural
diversity. The indiscriminate and
unscientific mining and absence of post-
mining treatment and management of mined
areas are making the fragile ecosystems more
vulnerable to environmental degradation and leading
to large scale land cover/land use changes.
The current modus operandi of surface
mining in the area generates huge quantity
of mine spoil or overburden (consolidated
and unconsolidated materials overlying the
coal seam) in the form of gravels, rocks,
sand, soil etc. which are dumped over a large
area adjacent to the mine pits. The dumping
of overburden and coal destroys the
surrounding vegetation and leads to severe
soil and water pollution. Large scale
denudation of forest cover, scarcity of
water, pollution of air, water and soil,
and degradation of agricultural lands are
some of the conspicuous environmental
implications of coal mining in Jaintia Hills.
Further, entire coal mining area of the
Jaintia Hills has become full of mine pits
and caves. These open, unfilled pits are
the places where surface water percolates
and disappears. As a result, smaller
streams and rivers of the area, which
served as life lines for the people, are
either completely disappearing from t he
f a c e o f t h e e a r t h o r b e co m i n g s e a s o na l
instead. Consequently, the area is
facing acute shortage of clean drinking
and irrigation water. Besides, a vast area
has become physically disfigured due to
haphazard dumping of overburden and mined
coal, and caving in of the ground and
subsidence of land.
69
Continuous discharge of Acid Mine Drainage

(AMD) and toxic chemicals from coal mines,
storage sites and exposed overburden have
polluted the river system of the area. Acidic
water on reaching to land and agricultural
fields has affected the traditional
agriculture and agricultural productivity
of the area (Das Gupta et al, 2002; Swer and
Singh, 2004)
"4.2.5 Degradation of Water Quality due to

Coal Mining
The water bodies of the area are the greatest victims
of the coal mining. The water bodies are badly
affected by contamination of Acid Mines
Drainage (AMD) originating from mines and
spoils, leaching of heavy metals, • organic
enrichment and silting by coal and sand
particles. Pollution of the safer is
evidenced by the colour of the water which
in most of the rivers and streams in the
mining area varies from brownish to
reddish orange. Low pH (between 2-3), high
conductivity, high concentration of
sulphate, iron and toxic heavy metals, low
dissolved oxygen (DO) and high BOD are
some of the physic-chemical and
biological parameters which' characterize
the degradation of water quality.
Analysis of physic-chemical and
biological p a r am et er s of w at er i n the
m i ni ng ar ea s h ow s s ev er e degradation of
water quality.
The colour of the water in mining area

generally varies from brownish to reddish
orange. Siltation of coal particles,'
sand, soil etc. and contamination of AMD
and formation of iron hydroxide are some
of the major causes of change in water
colour. Formation of iron hydroxides [Fe
(CH) 31 is mainly responsible for orange or
red colour of water in the mining areas.
70
Iron hydroxide is a yellowish insoluble

material commonly formed in water bodies
of the coalfields. It is this material that
stains streams and responsible for red to
orange color of water. When elevated levels
of iron are introduced into natural waters,
the iron is oxidized and hydrolyzed,
thereby forming precipitate of iron
hydroxides.
The water in coal mining areas has been

found highly acidic. The pH of streams and
rivers varies between 2.31 to 4.01. Solids
such as fine particles of coal, sand, mud
and other mineral particles were found
deposited at the bottom of the water
bodies. Besides, water wa s also found
turbid and coloured due to suspended
precipitates of iron hydroxides. D i s s o l v e d
oxygen was found to be low in water
bodies of coat mining areas, the lowest being
4.24 mg/L in river Rawaka and stream Metyngka
of Rymbai.
The waters of the mining areas have been

found containing sulphate concentration
between 78 to 168 mg/L. Electrical
conductivity is a rapid measure of the
total dissolved solids present in ionic
form. Water in coal mining areas was found
having high conductivity. Deposition of
silt at the bottom of the rivers and streams
is another important problem in coal mining
areas. Water bodies of the mining area
appear to contain various types of
organic matter which is evident by low
Di ss ol v ed Ox yg en ( D0 0 a nd h i gh
Bi oc he m ic al O xy ge n Demand(BOD).
As a result , the r i v e r s , s tr e am s and

springs which had supported extremely
rich biodiversity and traditional
agriculture, and were source of potable
and irrigation water in the area have
71
become unfit for human consumption.

Further, there is an overall decline in
agricultural productivity due to
contamination of soil with coal particles,
seepage of Acid mines drainage and scarcity
of water. The water of many rivers and
streams have almost become devoid of aquatic
life".
4.2.6 Causes of Deterioration of Water

Quality
Major causes of deterioration of water
quality, as evidenced by above observations are
AMD discharge, siltation and organic
enrichment. As in any other coal mining
area, Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) is the main
source of water pollution in the coal
mining areas of Jaintia Hills. As discussed
in previous chapter, Amp is formed by a
series of complex geochemical and microbial
reactions that occur when water comes in
contact with pyrite (Iron sulfide) found in
coal and exposed rocks of overburden. Iron
sulfide in presence of oxygen, water and
bacteria forms sulphuric acid, is referred to as
AMD. In the process, iron hydroxide, a yellowish
orange precipitate is also formed. The
prercipitate of iron hydroxide together with
other contaminants auses turbidity and
changes in colour of the water which reduces
the penetration of light and affects the
aquatic life. Extremely low pH conditions
in the water accelerate weathering and
dissolution of silicate and other rock
minerals, thereby causing the release of
other elements such as aluminium,
manganese, copper, cadmium etc. into the
water. Hence, water contaminated with AMD
is often coloured and turbid with
suspended solids, highly acidic (low pH),
and contains high concentration of
dissolved metals and other elements. Most
of the streams and rivers of Jaintia Hills
in coal mining areas are severely
72
contaminated with AMD and thus becomes

water has become highly acidic. The pH and
other parameters of some AMD affected
water bodies are summarized in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Summary of water quality
parameters in some Coal mining
rivers/reservoir.
SI. Rivers/ Colour pH Sulpha E

No. Streams & of te Conduc
Location Water conten tivity
ts (pS/Cm
(mg/L) )
1. Myntriang Light 2.8 36 56
2. Urn Pai yellow
Brownish 3.2 186 160
3. Rawaka, Reddis 2.31 166.5 135
Rymbai h
4. Kenai- brown
Reddis 2.66 144.0 74
um, h
5. Rymbai
Metyngka, brown
Reddish 2.42 168.0 27
Rymbai brown
6. Urn- Brownis 3.52 118.7 67
Mynkseh, h
Ladrymbai orange
7. Thwai- Brownish 4.01 82.87 18
Kungor,
Bapun
8. Umkyrpon, Light 3.67 161.3 37
Khliehri Orange
at
9. Waikhyrwi,
Sutnga Brownis 3.96 78.69 -
h
10. Um Roong 2.8 896 128
11. Mostem Brownish 2.9 616 119
12. Sarbang Turbid 3.35 150 32
13. Um Lurem Yellowis 5.0 19 3
14. Khongdong h
Clear 4.6 43 34
Reservoir
Source: Present study; GSI, 2006-7;

Biahwar, 2010
73
The results show that most of the rivers in

the coal mining areas of Jaintia Hills are
severely affected AMD as evident from the
lower pH values, higher sulphate content and
EC in water samples".
63. Thus, there were clear allegations in the
application that in spite of various remedial measures
set out in the report no proper and effective remedial
measures have been taken by the concerned authorities
of the State of Meghalaya. Paragraph 3(VI) is as
follows:
“3(VI). That the various remedial measures

are set out in detail in paragraphs 4.4,
4.5, 5, 5.1 and 5.2 and other relevant
paragraphs of the said report. However,
to the best of knowledge of the Applicant,
no proper and effective remedial
measures have been undertaken by the
concerned authorities till date and the
innocent citizens/ water bodies etc. of
the concerned areas including that of Dima
Hasao District in Assam continue to be
subjected to the ill-effect of the aforesaid
illegal mining operation in the State of
Meghalaya. That apart, continuous and
irreparable damage on the environment,
water, soil, agriculture etc. in the
concerned areas including Dima Hasao
district of Assam are also continuing as a result
of the said illegal mining operations in
Jaintia Hills in the State of Meghalaya.”
74
64. Ground A of the application is also relevant to
be reproduced which is to the following effect:
“GROUNDS
A. that the aforementioned illegal mining
operations in the Jaintia Hills in the
State of Meghalaya have not only caused
serious and irreparable damage to the
ecology, water bodies and the socio-
economy of the concerned areas including
of Dima Hasao district of Assam but has
also resulted in serious
erosion/corrosion of the underwater plants
and machineries and equipments of the
Kopili Hydro Power Project of the North
Eastern Electric Power Corporation of
India (a Government of India
undertaking), The ill-effect of the said
mining operation has been highlighted in
detail in the aforementioned detailed
project report by Dr. O.P.Singh, Professor,
North-Eastern Hills University as well as
the said article published in the
International Journal of Environmental
Sciences. Though remedial measures were
suggested in both the aforesaid studies,
to the best of the knowledge of the
Applicant, no proper and effective
remedial measures have been undertaken by
the Respondents herein and the ill -effect of
the said activities are still continuing to
the detriment of the ecology, water bodied
and socio-economy of the concerned areas
including Dima Hasao district of Assam. It
is most respectfully submitted that the
total inaction on the part of the
Respondents herein in spite of detailed
study on the subject with remedial
suggestions are totally inexcusable and
show the total callous attitude of the
State Respondents The menace of illegal
opencast mining operations in the Jaintia
Hills in Meghalaya is still continuing to
75
the detriment of the ecology and socio -

economic of the concerned areas including
Dime Hasao district of Assam and as such,
warrants, in the most respectful
submissions of the Applicant, immediate
intervention by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
The aforesaid inaction has resulted in
violation of the various enactments
mentioned in Schedule I of the National
Green Tribunal Act 2010 including the
Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection)
Act 1986 apart from infringing the
fundamental rights of the Applicant under
Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India.”
65. The pleadings in O.A.No.73 of 2014 as extracted
above clearly and categorically alleged environmental
degradation consequent to illegal coal mining. It was
further stated that inaction of respondent authorities
has resulted in violation of various enactments
mentioned in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010 including
the Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act,
1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
The application O.A.No.73 of 2014 thus has clearly
made out allegations which were sufficient for the
Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction as conferred by

76
Section 14. Both the component as appearing in sub-
section 1 of Section 14 that is (i) substantial
question relating to environment and (ii) such
question arises out of the implementation of the
enactments specified in Schedule I, were involved.
66. The NGT after adverting to the application
O.A.No.73 of 2014 on 17.04,2014 has undertaken
different proceedings and asked for various reports
from different committees including State Pollution
Control Board. By order dated 31.08.2018, the NGT had
appointed a committee headed by Justice B.P. Katakey,
former Judge of the Gauhati High Court which consisted
of Prof. Ashok K. Singh, Rajiv Gandhi Chair Professor,
Department of Environmental Science & Engineering
representative from Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad
IIT(ISM), Dhanbad (826004), Dr. Shantanu Kumar Dutta,
Scientist ‘D’ representative of Central Pollution
Control Board. The said committee submitted interim
report on 31.12.2018 and on the subject “Whether coal
mining activities as well as dumping of coal results
in adverse environmental effect, if so, the nature and

77
extent thereof?” has been dealt with in Issue No.(D)
in the following manner:
“Issue No.(D) Whether coal mining activities

as well as dumping of coal results in adverse
environmental effect, if so, the nature and
extent thereof?
(i) The Meghalaya State Pollution Control

Board in the month of September, 1997
published a report entitled “ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT OF COAL MINING IN JAINTIA HILLS
DISTRICT”. The then Chairman of the said
Board, in his foreword, has admitted
unplanned and unscientific coal mining
activities in the State for more than hundred
years, which achieved dangerous dimensions
since last two decades and are creating
ecological disturbances and negative
environmental impacts, to the extent that the
very existence of biological life is
threatened in the coal mining areas of the
State. It has also been admitted that no
systematic efforts to study such impacts have
so far been made by any institution. The then
Member Secretary of the Board, in the
preface, has projected the adverse impacts
on the environment because of the coal mining
activities. The pH level of in water almost
all the rivers and streams was found to be
below the required level. In some rivers and
streams, the pH level was found to be as low
as 2.4. The Meghalaya State Pollution Control
Board, in the said report, has observed that
the random discharge of AMD and acidic run
offs from -40- the coal storage areas have
also made the rivers, streams and even ground
waters highly acidic. The ambient air quality
of the coal mining and coal storage areas was
also found to be degraded to certain extent.
The Board, therefore, observed that – “The
uncontrolled and unscientific coal mining
operations in Jaintia Hills District have
78
already created massive ecological

disturbances and environmental degradation
because presently neither any pollution
control measures are adopted by the miners
nor any sincere efforts are made for
reclamation of the mine land”. In the said
report, the following recommendations were
made to minimize the overall adverse
environmental impacts of the mining
activities:-
(a) To generate social awareness among

the public in general and the miners in
particular about the adverse
environmental impacts and the health
hazards associated with such unscientific
and unplanned coal mining activities.
(b) Preparation of the inventory of the

mine owners, areas under mining and rate
of land use change to get the first hand
knowledge about the quantum of the
efforts required for better management of
these activities.
(c) To enforce suitable legislations on

the lines of the National Mineral Policy
immediately for exploitation of coal in
most sustainable manner.
(d) To engage expert institution for

finding out the most suited technologies
for the coal exploitation with
appropriate pollution control measures in
order to ensure that the environment as a
whole is not subjected to further
degradation.
(e) To engage the expert institution for

finding out the suitable ways for
rehabilitation of the mined land in phase
manner so that the scarce land resources
can be brought back to productive uses.
79
(f) To look for the alternative transport

facilities to control vehicular
pollution.
(g) To identify the suitable location for

the storage of coal for sale with adequate
facilities to treat dump run offs.
(h) To study the aspect of the presence

of trace elements in the surface and
ground water because the low pH values
increase the dissolution power of water.
Large numbers of trace elements are
always associated with the coal which
gets dissolved in low pH waters. These
trace elements are serious health hazards
even in very low concentrations.
(i) To introduce lucrative schemes for

the aforestation in the most affected
areas.
(j) To develop the State Mineral Policy

with the interaction of Government
Agencies, Social Institutions, Local
Elders and the Miners, keeping in view
the specific land ownership system of the
State. Nothing of the above
recommendations have been implemented so
far.
(ii) It is, therefore, evident that apart

from the water, air pollution, there is
degradation of surface land because of the
coal mining activities in the State of
Meghalaya. Despite publication of the said
report by the Meghalaya State Pollution
Control Board as back as in the year 1997,
no steps appeared to have been taken by any
authority to check the adverse environmental
affect and also to remedy the same.”
80
67. 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.
68. Hence, there was sufficient allegation regarding
substantial questions relating to environment and
violation of enactments in Schedule I. We fail to see
any substance in the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant that NGT has no jurisdiction to
entertain the case and pass orders. During submission,
learned counsel for the appellant has not even referred
to application which was filed by the applicant in
O.A.No.73/2014. 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

81
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. Article 48A of
the Constitution provides:
“48A. Protection and improvement of

environment and safeguarding of forests and
wild life The State shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wild life of the
country.”
69. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in Techi Tagi
Tara versus Rajendra Singh Bhandari and others,
2018(11) SCC 734. This Court had occasion to consider
Section 14,15 and 2(m) of the National Green Tribunal
Act, 2010, which involves the question of jurisdiction
of NGT. The nature of order passed by NGT which was
challenged before this court has been noticed in para
1 of the judgment, which is to the following effect:-
“1. This batch of appeals is directed against

the judgment and order dated 24-8-2016 passed
by the National Green Tribunal, Principal
Bench, New Delhi (for short “the NGT”) in
82
Rajendra Singh Bhandari v. State of

Uttarakhand1. On a reading of the judgment
and order passed by the NGT, it is quite clear
that the Tribunal was perturbed and anguished
that some persons appointed to the State
Pollution Control Boards (for short “SPCBs”)
did not have, according to the NGT, the
necessary expertise or qualifications to be
members or Chairpersons of such high-powered
and specialised statutory bodies and
therefore did not deserve their appointment
or nomination. While we fully commiserate
with the NGT and share the pain and anguish,
we are of the view that the Tribunal has, at
law, exceeded its jurisdiction in directing
the State Governments to reconsider the
appointments and in laying down guidelines
for appointment to the SPCBs, however well-
meaning they might be. Therefore, we set
aside the decision of the NGT, but note that
a large number of disconcerting facts have
been brought out in the judgment which need
serious consideration by those in authority,
particularly the State Governments that make
appointments or nominations to the SPCBs.
Such appointments should not be made casually
or without due application of mind
considering the duties, functions and
responsibilities of the SPCBs.”
70. In the above background, this Court held that the
failure of the State Government to appoint
professionals and experience persons to the key
positions in the State Pollution Control Board cannot
be classified as a primary dispute over which the NGT

83
could have jurisdiction. Following was laid down in
paragraph 21: -
“21. As far as we are concerned, in the

context of the Act, a dispute would be the
assertion of a right or an interest or a claim
met by contrary claims on the other side. In
other words, the dispute must be one of
substance and not of form and it appears to
us that the appointments that we are
concerned with are not “disputes” as such or
even disputes for the purposes of the Act —
they could be disputes for a constitutional
court to resolve through a writ of quo
warranto, but certainly not for the NGT to
venture into. The failure of the State
Government to appoint professional and
experienced persons to key positions in the
SPCBs or the failure to appoint any person
at all might incidentally result in an
ineffective implementation of the Water Act
and the Air Act, but this cannot be
classified as a primary dispute over which
the NGT would have jurisdiction. Such a
failure might be of a statutory obligation
over which, in the present context and not
universally, only a constitutional court
would have jurisdiction and not a statutory
body like the NGT. While we appreciate the
anxiety of the NGT to preserve and protect
the environment as a part of its statutory
functions, we cannot extend these concepts
to the extent of enabling the NGT to consider
who should be appointed as a Chairperson or
a member of any SPCB or who should not be so
appointed.”
71. The issue involved in the above case was entirely
different which did not directly pertain to
environmental degradation. Whether NGT has

84
jurisdiction to entertain a particular cause is a
question which depends on the facts of each case. To
find out as to whether NGT has jurisdiction to
entertain a case, the case set up before the Tribunal
has to be looked into to answer the question. The
judgment of Techi Tagi Tara (supra) was on its own
facts and does not help the appellant in the present
case.
72. In view of the foregoing discussion, we reject the
submission of the learned counsel for the State that
the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under Sections
14 and 15 in entertaining the application O.A.No.73 of
2014. We also record our dis-approval to the stand
taken by the State in this regard.
Point No.2
73. Before we proceed to consider the above points,
first of all, we need to notice the nature of land
tenure in the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya.
Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance on
the question of nature of land tenure in the Hills
Districts of State of Meghalaya. By the North-Eastern

85
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. Learned counsel
for the parties have referred to various materials
pertaining to the land tenure system prevalent in the
Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya. 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

86
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. For the purposes
of present case where the submission of the appellant
is that land in which mining operations of coal is
being done are lands belonging to Tribals who are
owners of the land as well as of the sub-soil, we
proceed with the assumption that Tribal is the owner
of the land. It is further the case of the appellant
that in Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya in land
which is privately owned by the Tribal or community
owned, the Tribals or the community or the clan are
owners of both surface right and sub-soil. It is the
case of the appellant that the State does not have any
right in sub-soil or minerals. The judgment of this in
Thressiamma Jacob and others vs. Geologist, Department

87
of Mining and Geology and others, 2013(9) SCC 725, is
relied on. This Court in the above case had occasion
to consider the question of ownership of sub-
soil/mineral rights in reference to genmom lands in
Malabar area of the State of Madras. Holder of the
genmom rights also claimed not only as proprietor of
the soil but the owner of the minerals in the soil.
This Court laid down following in paragraph 58:
“58. For the abovementioned reasons, we are

of the opinion that there is nothing in the
law which declares that all mineral
wealth/subsoil rights vest in the State, on
the other hand, the ownership of
subsoil/mineral wealth should normally
follow the ownership of the land, unless the
owner of the land is deprived of the same by
some valid process. In the instant appeals,
no such deprivation is brought to our notice
and therefore we hold that the appellants are
the proprietors of the minerals obtaining in
their lands. We make it clear that we are not
making any declaration regarding their
liability to pay royalty to the State as that
issue stands referred to a larger Bench.”
74. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Raja Anand
Brahma Shah vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
AIR 1967 SC 1081, had laid down that prima facie owner
of a surface of the land is entitled to everything
beneath the land unless there is an express or implied

88
reservation in the grant. In paragraph 13 following
has been laid down:
“13. In our opinion, a reading of the two

sanads supports the case of the appellant
that there is no reservation of mineral
rights in favour of the Government. The
expression used in the sanad of 1803 A.D. is
“You ought to consider him the Raja of
immovable jagir and of mahal and everything
appertaining thereto belongs to him.” In
effect, the grant to the Raja in the two
sanads is a grant of the lands comprised in
the mahal of Agori and everything
appertaining thereto and as a matter of
construction the grant must be taken to be
not only of the land but also of everything
beneath or within the land. Prima facie the
owner of a surface of the land is entitled
ex jure to everything beneath the land and
in the absence of any reservation in the
grant minerals necessarily pass with the
rights to the surface (Halsbury’s Laws of
England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 26, p. 325). In other
words, a transfer of the right to the surface
conveys right to the minerals underneath
unless there is an express or implied
reservation in the grant. A contract
therefore to sell or grant a lease of land
will generally include mines, quarries and
minerals beneath or within it (Mitchell v.
Mosley). It is manifest that when the sanad
was executed in favour of the Raja the
Government made over the land with all its
capabilities to the Raja and merely imposed
on him a fixed sum of revenue in lieu of all
the rights the Government had as a proprietor
of the soil. When neither of the parties knew
undiscovered minerals underneath the land and
the idea of reservation never entered their
minds it cannot be held that there was any
implied reservation in the grant. Nor can
89
afterwards a distinction be drawn between the

various rights that may exist on the land for
the purpose of qualifying the original grant
and importing into it what neither party
could have imagined. It was argued on behalf
of the respondents that the assessment was
made on the agricultural income, but this
circumstance cannot derogate from the rights
conveyed to the Raja in the two sanads
because no restriction was placed on the use
of the land and the use by the Raja was not
limited to agriculture.”
75. Thus, looking to the nature of the land tenure as
applicable 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. We are, thus, of the opinion that
Tribals owned the land and also owned the minerals,
which is an inescapable conclusion. We, thus, proceed
to examine the issues on the premise that in privately
owned land or community land minerals also vest in the
owner. We first need to consider as to whether the
provisions of MMRD Act, 1957 are applicable in the
Tribal area of Hills District of State of Meghalaya.

90
76. 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. Provisions of Article 244 after formation
of State of Meghalaya is as follows:
“Article 244. Administration of Scheduled

Areas and Tribal Areas.-(1) The provisions
of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the
administration and control of the Scheduled
Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any State other
than the States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura
and Mizoram.
(2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule
shall apply to the administration of the
tribal areas in the State of Assam,
Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.”
77. 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. Sixth Schedule Para 1(1) is as follows:
“1. Autonomous districts and autonomous

regions.-(1)Subject to the provisions of this
paragraph, the tribal areas in each item of
91
Parts I, II and IIA and in Part III of the

table appended to paragraph 20 of this
Schedule shall be an autonomous district.
78. Para 2 of Sixth Schedule provides for Constitution
of District Councils and Regional Councils. Para 3
provides for powers of the District Councils and
Regional Councils to make laws which is to the
following effect:
“3. Powers of the District Councils and

Regional Councils to make laws.—(1) The
Regional Council for an autonomous region in
respect of all areas within such region and
the District Council for an autonomous
district in respect of all areas within the
district except those which are under the
authority of Regional Councils, if any,
within the district shall have power to make
laws with respect to—
(a) the allotment, occupation or use, or

the setting apart, of land, other than
any land which is a reserved forest
for the purposes of agriculture or
grazing or for residential or other
non-agricultural purposes or for any
other purpose likely to promote the
interests of the inhabitants of any
village or town:
Provided that nothing in such laws
shall prevent the compulsory
acquisition of any land, whether
occupied or unoccupied, for public
purposes 1 [by the Government of the
State concerned] in accordance with
the law for the time being in force
authorising such acquisition;
92
(b) the management of any forest not being

a reserved forest;
(c) the use of any canal or water-course
for the purpose of agriculture;
(d) the regulation of the practice of jhum
or other forms of shifting
cultivation;
(e) the establishment of village or town
committees or councils and their
powers;
(f) any other matter relating to village
or town administration, including
village or town police and public
health and sanitation;
(g) the appointment or succession of
Chiefs or Headmen;
(h) the inheritance of property;
(i) marriage and divorce;
(j) social customs.
(2) In this paragraph, a “reserved forest”

means any area which is a reserved forest
under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, or
under any other law for the time being in
force in the area in question. (3) All laws
made under this paragraph shall be submitted
forthwith to the Governor and, until assented
to by him, shall have no effect.”
79. Para 9 of the Sixth Schedule which is relevant for
the present case is as follows:
“9. Licences or leases for the purpose of

prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals.—
(1) Such share of the royalties accruing each
year from licences or leases for the purpose
of prospecting for, or the extraction of,
minerals granted by the Government of the
93
State] in respect of any area within an

autonomous district as may be agreed upon
between the Government of the State] and the
District Council of such district shall be
made over to that District Council.
(2) If any dispute arises as to the share of

such royalties to be made over to a District
Council, it shall be referred to the Governor
for determination and the amount determined
by the Governor in his discretion shall be
deemed to be the amount payable under sub-
paragraph (1) of this paragraph to the
District Council and the decision of the
Governor shall be final.”
80. Para 12A which is relevant for Meghalaya is as
follows:
“12A. Application of Acts of Parliament and

of the Legislature of the State of Meghalaya
to autonomous districts and autonomous
regions in the State of Meghalaya.—
Notwithstanding anything in this

Constitution, —
(a) if any provision of a law made by a

District or Regional Council in the State of
Meghalaya with respect to any matter
specified in subparagraph (1) of paragraph 3
of this Schedule or if any provision of any
regulation made by a District Council or a
Regional Council in that State under
paragraph 8 or paragraph 10 of this Schedule,
is repugnant to any provision of a law made
by the Legislature of the State of Meghalaya
with respect to that matter, then, the law
or regulation made by the District Council
or, as the case may be, the Regional Council
whether made before or after the law made by
the Legislature of the State of Meghalaya,
shall, to the extent of repugnancy, be void
94
and the law made by the Legislature of the

State of Meghalaya shall prevail;
(b) 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 and any such direction
may be given so as to have retrospective
effect.
81. Now, we revert back to Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Act, 1957 has
been enacted to provide for development and regulation
of mines and minerals under the control of the Union.
Section 1 of the Act is as follows:
“Section 1. Short title, extent and

commencement. ―(1) This Act may be called the
Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957.
(2) It extends to the whole of India.
(3) It shall come into force on such date3

as the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette,
appoint.”
82. The Act came into effect w.e.f. 01.06.1958.
Whether there are any indications in the Sixth Schedule
or any other provision of the law by which it can be
contended that Act, 1957 is not applicable in Hills

95
District of Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya? We may
first refer to Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which
is a provision for Administration of Tribal areas in
the State of Meghalaya. Para 12A sub-clause (b)
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) of the VIth
Schedule of the Constitution, 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. At this juncture, we
may also notice the report of the Comptroller and
Auditor General of India for the year ended 31st March,
2013. In para 7.5.1 the report mentions:
“7.5.1. Introduction
96
Meghalaya is endowed with sizeable deposits

of valuable minerals like coal, limestone,
uranium, granite and clay. Minerals being
valuable resource, the extraction needs to
be maximised through scientific methods of
mining with aim to ensure extraction and
utilisation of minerals. Besides, most of the
mineral reserves are in areas which are under
forest cover and hence, mining in the State
has environmental implications. In
Meghalaya, individual and local communities
have ownership over the land and the minerals
and barring a few reserve forest areas, the
State Government has no ownership over the
minerals. The activities of the Mining &
Geology (M&G) Department, Government of
Meghalaya (GOM) are limited to collection of
royalty on the minerals exported outside the
State besides geological
investigation/exploration of minerals. The
Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 lays down the legal
framework for regulation of mines and
development of minerals. The Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960 and the Mineral
Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 were
accordingly framed under the MMDR Act framed
for conservation and systematic development
of minerals and for regulating grant of
permits, licences and leases. The GOM has
introduced the Meghalaya Mineral Cess Act,
1988 to mobilise additional revenue. Further
with a view to facilitating systematic,
scientific and planned utilisation of mineral
resources and to streamline mineral based
development of the State, the Meghalaya Mines
and Mineral Policy, 2012 has also been
notified with effect from 5 November 2012.”
83. The Comptroller and Auditor General has clearly
stated that Act, 1957 is fully applicable for

97
regulation of mines and regulation of minerals in the
State of Meghalaya.
84. Learned counsel for the State of Meghalaya has
also filed before us along with an affidavit of Joint
Secretary of Government of Meghalaya, Mining and
Geology Department dated 13.04.1018 by which Meghalaya
Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012 issued by the
Government of Meghalaya as well as draft guidelines of
coal mining activities in the State prepared in the
year 2015 has been brought on the record.
85. Clause 10 of the Policy provides for “Regulatory
Framework for Mine Development and Mining”. Sub-clause
b) of Clause 10 required 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 and 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

98
contemplated that order for grant of mineral
concessions will be issued by the State Government,
with the approval of the Central Government wherever
necessary. Thus, the Policy of 2012 contemplated
regulatory regime for mining lease by the State. The
Mining and Geology Department of the Government had
framed a draft guidelines for coal mining activity in
the State which has also been brought on record along
with the above affidavit dated 13.04.2018.
86. The above guidelines were prepared after in
consultation with the Central Government.
87. The above draft guidelines prepared by the State
clearly mentions about the unregulated and
unscientific mining being carried out in the State of
Meghalaya. The Policy Guidelines of Coal Mining which
is part of the guidelines also contains following
statement:
“The Mines Act, 1952 and the Mines and

Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 (MMDR), together with the rules and
regulations framed under them constitute the
basic laws governing the mining sector in
99
India. While the Mines Act, 1952 governs the

health and safety of the workers, the MMDR
Act, 1957 (including all amendments) lays
down the legal frame work for the regulation
of mines and development of all minerals
other than petroleum and natural gas. The
relevant rules in force under the MMDR Act,
1957 are the Mineral Concession Rules (MCR),
1960 outlines the procedures and conditions
for obtaining a Prospecting Licence or Mining
Lease. The MCDR, 1988 lays down guidelines
for ensuring mining on a scientific basis,
while conserving the environment, at the same
time.
Apart from the mining statutes, which also

govern environment in mines, India has
elaborate environment statutes for
protection of environment in mining.”
88. One submission of Shri Naphade with respect to
direction of NGT to frame mining policy by the State
also needs consideration. Shri Naphade submits that
the State of Meghalaya having no legislative
competence with regard to major minerals, National
Green Tribunal could not have directed the State of
Meghalaya to frame Mining Policy.
89. 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 stands

100
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, which shall be referred to later
in this judgment.
90. 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. We may further notice that Meghalaya Mines

101
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. We, thus, are of the view that 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.
91. 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.
92. The Government of Meghalaya has also made a
request to the Government of India in the year 2015
for issuance of Presidential notification under Para
12A(b) of Sixth Schedule for exempting State of
Meghalaya from certain provisions of the MMDR Act,
1957. After several deliberations, the Union of India
has communicated through its O.M. dated 12.03.2019

102
that it is not possible to accede to the request of
the Government of Meghalaya for issuance of
Presidential notification under Para 12A(b) of Sixth
Schedule. Thus, the request made by the State of
Meghalaya to issue exemption has not also been acceded
to. The request of the State of Meghalaya that
exemption be granted by Presidential notification
under Para 12A(b) itself expresses recognition of the
State of Meghalaya that provisions of Act, 1957 are
applicable. We, thus, conclude that there is nothing
in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which in any
manner exclude the applicability of Act, 1957 in the
Tribal areas of Hills District of State of Meghalaya.
Point No.3
93. We need to scan through the statutory scheme of
Act, 1957 to find out as to whether Parliamentary
legislation requires obtaining lease for winning the
minerals in so far as mining of coal from privately
owned land/community owned land are concerned?

103
94. Section 2 of the Act, 1957 contains declaration
to the following effect:
“2. Declaration as to expediency of Union

Control.―It is hereby declared that it is
expedient in the public interest that the
Union should take under its control the
regulation of mines and the development of
minerals to the extent hereinafter
provided.”
95. The Act, 1957 has been enacted in reference to
Entry 54 List I of Seventh Schedule to the following
effect:
“Entry 54. Regulation of mines and mineral

development to the extent to which such
regulation and development under the control
of the Union is declared by Parliament by
law to be expedient in the public interest.”
96. At this juncture, we may notice Entry 23 of List
II which is to the following effect:
“Entry 23. Regulation of mines and mineral

development subject to the provisions of List
I with respect to regulation and development
under the control of the Union.”
97. 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

104
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. Learned
counsel for the appellant have also very fairly not
disputed the position in law.
98. Section 3 of the Act contains definition clause.
Section 3(c) defines mining lease and Section 3(d)
defines a mining operation which are to the following
effect:
“Section 3(c) “mining lease” means a lease

granted for the purpose of undertaking mining
operations, and includes a sub-lease granted
for such purpose;
Section 3(d) “mining operations” means any

operations undertaken for the purpose of
winning any mineral;”
99. 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

105
lease, granted under this Act and rules made
thereunder. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 is relevant
in the present case which is as follows:
4. Prospecting or mining operations to be

under licence or lease.―(1) No person shall
undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or
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
the rules made thereunder:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section

shall affect any prospecting or mining
operations undertaken in any area in
accordance with terms and conditions of a
prospecting licence or mining lease granted
before the commencement of this Act which is
in force at such commencement:
Provided further that nothing in this

sub-section shall apply to any prospecting
operations undertaken by the Geological
Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines,
the Atomic Minerals Directorate for
Exploration and Research of the Department
of Atomic Energy of the Central Government,
the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any
State Government (by whatever name called),
and the Mineral Exploration Corporation
Limited., a Government company within the
meaning of clause (45) of section 2 of the
Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), and any
such entity that may be notified for this
purpose by the Central Government]:
Provided also that nothing in this sub-

section shall apply to any mining lease
(whether called mining lease mining
concession or by any other name) in force
106
immediately before the commencement of this

Act in the Union territory of Goa, Daman and
Diu.”
100. 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.
Section 5 contains restriction on the grant of
prospecting licences and mining lease in the following
words:
5. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting

licences or mining leases.― (1) A State
Government shall not grant a reconnaissance
permit, prospecting licence or mining lease
to any person unless such person―
(a) is an Indian national, or company as

defined in 1clause (20) of section 2
of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of
2013)]; and
(b) satisfies such conditions as may be
prescribed:
107
Provided that in respect of any mineral

specified in Part A and Part B of the First
Schedule, no reconnaissance permit,
prospecting licence or mining lease shall be
granted except with the previous approval of
the Central Government.
Explanation. ―For the purposes of this sub-

section, a person shall be deemed to be an
Indian national,―
(a) in the case of a firm or other

association of individuals, only if
all the members of the firm or members
of the association are citizens of
India; and
(b) in the case of an individual, only if
he is a citizen of India.
(2) No mining lease shall be granted by the
State Government unless it is satisfied that―
(a) there is evidence to show the

existence of mineral contents in the
area for which the application for a
mining lease has been made in
accordance with such parameters as
may be prescribed for this purpose by
the Central Government;
(b) there is a mining plan duly approved
by the Central Government, or by the
State Government, in respect of such
category of mines as may be specified
by the Central Government, for the
development of mineral deposits in
the area concerned:
Provided that a mining lease may be
granted upon the filing of a mining plan in
accordance with a system established by the
State Government for preparation,
certification, and monitoring of such plan,
with the approval of the Central Government.
108
101. The proviso to Section 5(1) is relevant since it
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. We in the present
case are concerned with coal which is in Para A of
First Schedule.
102. The next provision which is relevant is Section
13 which provides for Rule making power of Central
Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 sub-
section (1) and Section 13 sub-section (2) in so far
as relevant in the present case are as follows:
“13. Power of Central Government to make

rules in respect of minerals.―(1) The Central
Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, make rules for regulating
the grant of reconnaissance permits,
prospecting licences and mining leases in
respect of minerals and for purposes
connected therewith.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to

the generality of the foregoing power, such
rules may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:―
(a) the person by whom, and the manner in

which, applications for reconnaissance
109
permits, prospecting licences or mining

leases in respect of land in which the
minerals vest in the Government may be
made and the fees to be paid therefor;
……………………………
(f) the procedure for obtaining 5 [a

reconnaissance permit, a prospecting
licence or a mining lease] in respect of
any land in which the minerals vest in a
person other than the Government and the
terms on which, and the conditions
subject to which, such 6 [a permit,
licence or lease may be granted or
renewed;
…………………………”
103. When we read clause (a) and clause (f), it
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(f).
110
104. The Central Government in exercise of power
under Section 13 has framed Rules, namely, Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 1960. Chapter IV of the Rules
contains a heading “Grant of Mining Lease in respect
of land the Minerals vest in the Government”. Rules 22
to 40 contain various provisions under Chapter IV.
Chapter V has a separate heading which 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”. Thus, Chapter V contains
provisions for grant of lease in respect of minerals
which vest in the person other than the Government.
Rules 41 and 42 which are relevant are quoted below:
“41. Applicability of this chapter: - The

provisions of this chapter shall apply only
to the grant of prospecting licences and
mining leases in respect of land in which the
minerals vest exclusively in a person other
than the Government.
42. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting

licence and mining lease:- (1) No prospecting
licence or mining lease shall be granted to
any person unless he has filed an affidavit
stating that he has–
(i) filed up-to-date income tax returns;

111
(ii) paid the income tax assessed on

him, and
(iii) paid the income tax on the basis
of self-assessment as provided in
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of
1961). (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.”
105. 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.
In statutory provisions there is no kind of exception
as contended by the learned counsel of the appellant
that when owner himself wants to win the minerals he
does not require any mining lease. The submission is
contrary to the express statutory scheme, in the event
submission of appellant is accepted that with regard
to minerals which vest in a private person no mining
lease is required, the whole object of the Union by
which it declared to have taken under its control

112
regulation of mines and development of minerals shall
be frustrated.
106. Another limb of submission of the appellant
needs to be noticed here. Shri Naphade submits that
there is no concept of owner of a land granting lease
to himself. He submits that concept of lease is well
known and well recognised concept as contained in
Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act. Section 105
of the Transfer of Property Act is as follows:
“Section 105. Lease defined. A lease of

immovable property is a transfer of a right
to enjoy such property, made for a certain
time, express or implied, or in perpetuity,
in consideration of a price paid or promised,
or of money, a share of crops, service or any
other thing of value, to be rendered
periodically or on specified occasions to the
transferor by the transferee, who accepts the
transfer on such terms.
Lessor, lessee, premium and rent defined: The

transferor is called the lessor, the
transferee is called the lessee, the price
is called the premium, and the money, share,
service or other thing to be so rendered is
called the rent.”
113
107. Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition Para
321 defines nature of mining lease in the following
manner:
“321. Nature of mining lease. A lease may be

granted of land or any part of land, and since
minerals are a part of the land it follows
that a lease can be granted of the surface
of the land and the minerals below, or of the
surface alone, or of the minerals alone. It
has been said that a contract for the working
and getting of minerals, although for
convenience called a mining lease, is not in
reality a lease at all in the sense in which
one speaks of an agricultural lease, and that
such a contract, properly considered, is
really a sale of a portion of the land at a
price payable by instalments, that is, by way
of rent or royalty, spread over a number of
years.”
108. This Court had occasion to consider the concept
of mining lease under Act, 1957 in SRI TARKESHWAR SIO
THAKUR JIU vs. DAR DASS DEY & CO. AND OTHERS, 1979(3)
SCC 106, this Court held that term lease occurring in
Section 3(C) of Act 67 of 1957 does not appear to have
been used in the narrow technical sense in which it is
defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act
but it has all the characteristics of a lease as
defined in the Transfer of Property Act. In paragraph
31 following was laid down:

114
“31. It is important to bear in mind that the

term “lease” occurring in the definition of
“mining lease” given in Section 3(c) of Act
67 of 1957 does not appear to have been used
in the narrow technical sense in which it is
defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of
Property Act. But, as rightly pointed out by
a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Fala
Krishna Pal v. Jagannath Marwari. a
settlement of the character of a mining lease
is everywhere in India regarded as “lease”.
A mining lease, therefore, may be
meticulously and strictly satisfy in all
cases, all the characteristics of a “lease”
as defined in the Transfer of Property Act.
Nevertheless, in the legal accepted sense,
it has always been regarded as a lease in
this country.”
109. This Court proceeded further to consider
Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and opined
following in paragraphs 37:
“37. A right to carry on mining operations

in land to extract a specified mineral and
to remove and appropriate that mineral, is a
“right to enjoy immovable property” within
the meaning of Section 105; more so, when —
as in the instant case — it is coupled with
a right to be in its exclusive khas
possession for a specified period. The “right
to enjoy immovable property” spoken of in
Section 105, means the right to enjoy the
property in the manner in which that property
can be enjoyed. If the subject-matter of the
lease is mineral land or a sand-mine, as in
the case before us, it can only be enjoyed
and occupied by the lessee by working it, as
indicated in Section 108, Transfer of
Property Act, which regulates the rights and
115
liabilities of lessors and lessees of

immovable property.”
110. This Court further following the Nageshwar Bux
Roy vs. Bengal Coal Co., LR (1930) 58 IA 29, in State
of Karanataka and others vs. Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar
and others, 1993 Supp.(3) 290 laid down following in
paragraph 6:
“6………The question, therefore, is whether the

grant of the right to extract the minor
mineral from Government quarry is a lease or
a licence and whether the contractor is
liable to pay the royalty in respect of minor
mineral extracted from the Government quarry.
Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act
defines a lease of immovable property as a
transfer of a right to enjoy such property
made for a certain time, express or implied,
or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price
paid or promised, or of money, a share of
crops, service or any other thing of value,
to be rendered periodically or on specified
occasions to the transferor by the
transferee, who accepts the transfer on such
terms. The normal connotation of the term
lease is the preservation of the demised
estate to be in occupation and enjoyment
thereof for a specified period or in
perpetuities for consideration; the corpus by
user thereof does not disappear and at the
expiry of the term or on termination the same
is handed over to the lessor subject to the
terms of the contract, express or implied. A
right to carry on mining operations in the
land on surface or sub-soil is to extract the
specified quantity of the minerals found
therein, to remove and appropriate that
116
mineral. Section 9 of the Mines and Minerals

(Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 affords
the guidance in this behalf. It says that the
holder of a mining lease or agent, etc. is
entitled to remove or consume the mineral.
It would mean destruction of the estate
leased out and appropriation thereof on
payment of consideration i.e. royalty.
Therefore, it is a right to enjoy immovable
property within the meaning of Section 105
more so when, as in the instant case, it is
coupled with a right to be in occupation or
enter into possession for a specified period.
Section 3(d) of the Act defines ‘mining
operations’ to mean any operation undertaken
for the purpose of winning any minerals. It
is true that no right, title or interest has
been created in the contractor over the
mining area. But he has been permitted to
remove and use the minor minerals in the
execution of the works as its (sic his) right
to enjoy immovable property spoken of in
Section 105 which means the right to enjoy
the property in the manner in which that
property can be enjoyed. In Nageshwar Bux Roy
v. Bengal Coal Co.1 Lord Macmillan speaking
for the Board held that:
“In considering the character and

effect of acts of possession in the
case of a mineral field, it is
necessary to bear in mind the nature
of the subject and the possession of
which it is susceptible. Owing to the
inaccessibility of minerals in the
earth, it is not possible to take
actual physical possession at once of
a whole mineral field: it can be
occupied only by extracting the
minerals and until the whole minerals
are exhausted the physical occupation
must necessarily be partial.”
117
111. 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 aforesaid definition in
the Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1960 under Chapter V
it cannot be said that no mining lease is contemplated
with respect to land where mineral vests exclusively
in a private person.
112. The examination of a statutory scheme
applicable in Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya shall
not be complete unless we notice two more aspects,
they are (i) the Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations
framed thereunder; (2) Environmental Protection Act,
1986 and the notification issued thereunder with
regard to mining project.

118
113. 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 16 provides a notice
to be given to mining operations by the owner agent or
manager of a mine. Section 16 is as follows:
“Section 16. Notice to be given of mining

operations.-(1) The owner, agent or manager
of a mine shall, before the commencement of
any mining operation, give to the Chief
Inspector, the Controller, Indian Bureau of
Mines and the district magistrate of the
district in which the mine is situate, notice
in writing in such form and containing such
particulars relating to the mine as may be
prescribed.
(2) Any notice given under sub-section

(1) shall be so given as to reach the persons
concerned at least one month before the
commencement of any mining operation.”
114. 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. Learned counsel for the appellant has not

119
disputed that the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952
are applicable with regard to the coal mining in the
State of Meghalaya. He, however, submits that there
are no powers with the District Magistrate or State
Officials under the Mines Act, 1952. Chapter II of
the Mines Act, 1952 deals with Inspectors and
Certifying Surgeons. Section 5(3) provided that the
District Magistrate may exercise the powers and
perform the duties of an Inspector subject to the
general or special orders of the Central Government.
Section 5(3) is as follows:-
“5(3) The district magistrate may exercise

the powers and perform the duties of an
Inspector subject to the general or special
orders of the Central Government.”
115. The above provision clearly empowers the
District Magistrate to exercise the powers and perform
the duties of an Inspector but subject to general and
special orders of Central Government, which means that
there may be some restriction on the power of the
District Magistrate as directed by Central Government.
In this context, Shri Naphade has referred to a
notification dated 18.09.1953 issued under sub-section

120
3 of Section 5 of the Mines Act, 1952, which is to the
following effect:-
“New Delhi, the 18th September, 1953

S.R.O. 1789 – In pursuance of sub-section 3
of section 5 of the Mines Act, 1952 (XXXV of
1952), the Central Government hereby directs
that in exercising the powers and performing
the duties of an Inspector, the District
Magistrate shall not, without prior reference
to the Chief Inspector, take direct action
or issue any order in respect of any matter
solely connected with the technical
direction, management or supervision of any
mine, even though such direction, management
or supervision may appear to him to be
dangerous or defective.
[No.M-41(370 52.]
P.N. SHARMA, Under Secy.”
116. The restriction as is apparent from the above
notification is with regard to matters solely
connected with the technical direction, management or
supervision of any mine. The above notification does
not take away all the functions of the District
Magistrate but restriction is with regard to area
mentioned therein. As noted above, Section 16 obliged
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

121
empowers the District Magistrate to institute
prosecution against any owner, agent or manager for
any offence under the Mines Act, 1952. Section 75 is
as follows:-
“75. Prosecution of owner, agent or

manager.--No prosecution shall be instituted
against any owner, agent or manager for any
offence under this Act except at the instance
of the Chief Inspector or of the district
magistrate or of an Inspector authorised in
this behalf by general or special order in
writing by the Chief Inspector;
Provided that the Chief Inspector or the

district magistrate or the Inspector as so
authorised shall, before instituting such
prosecution, satisfy himself that the owner,
agent or manager had failed to exercise all
due diligence to prevent the commission of
such offence.
Provided further that in respect of an

offence committed in the course of the
technical direction and management of a mine,
the district magistrate shall not institute
any prosecution against an owner, agent or
manager without the previous approval of the
Chief Inspector.”
117. We, thus, do not accept the submission of Shri
Naphade that District Magistrate has no jurisdiction
under the Mines Act, 1952 to take any action.
118. In exercise of the power under Section 57 of
Mines Act, 1952 a new set of regulations has been

122
framed, namely, Coal Mines Regulations, 2017.
Regulation 2(r) defines “District Magistrate”. The
Regulations contain various regulatory provisions with
regard to mines. Chapter II deals with returns, notices
and records. Chapter IV deals with Inspectors and Mine
Officials. 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.
119. Now we come to the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986. A 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. Section 3 of the Act, 1986 which
provided for requirements of prior environmental
clearance with regard to projects enumerates therein.
Schedule to the notification listed the projects or
activities requiring prior environmental clearance.
“Mining of minerals” included at Item No.1(a) but even

123
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. In place of Item No.1(a) new entry has
been substituted in respect of coal mine lease which
is to the following effect:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
“1(a) (i) >50 ha of <50 ha of General

Mining mining lease mining Conditions
of areas in lease shall
minerals respect of area in apply
non-coal mine respect except:
lease of non-
(i) for
coal mine
project or
lease
activity
>150 ha of
<150 ha of mining
mining lease
of mining of minor
area in
lease minerals
respect of
area in of
coal mine
respect Category
lease
of coal ‘B2’(up to
lease 25 ha of
mining
Asbestos
lease
mining
area);
irrespective
of mining area
(ii) River
bed mining
projects
on account
of inter-
state
boundary.
124
120. If the project was under Category ‘A’,
environmental clearance is required from Ministry of
Environment and Forests whereas as per new notification
dated 15.01.2016 for project ‘B’ environmental
clearance is required from State Environmental
Assessment Authority with respect of coal mining lease
area of less than or equal to 150 hectares. Now 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. We
have dealt with the notification dated 15.01.2016,
since it was placed before us and submissions were made
by learned counsel for the parties. 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. We have dealt the matter only in view to
clarify the statutory regime pertaining to mining of
coal.
125
121. 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.
Point No.4
122. We having held that for carrying out mining
operations in privately owned and community owned land
in Hills Districts of Meghalaya, obtaining a mining
lease is a mandatory requirement for carrying out the
mining, we have to examine the procedure for grant of
such mining lease and the authority/person, who is
competent to grant such lease.
123. 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

126
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.
124. 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
Government. There is a marked difference between the
rules contained in Chapter IV and rules contained in
Chapter V, few of which are relevant to notice for the
purposes of this case. 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)

127
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.
Most important rule to be noticed is Rule 45 in this
context, which is to the following effect:-
“45. Conditions of mining lease : - Every

mining lease shall be subject to the
following conditions :-
(i) the provisions of clauses (b) to (l) and

(p) to (u) of sub-rule (1) of rule 27 shall
apply to such leases with the modification
that in clauses (c) and (d) for the words
"State Government" the word "lessor" shall
be substituted ;
(ia) mining operations shall be undertaken

in accordance with the duly approved mining
plan ;
(ii) Omitted.;
(iii) the 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;
(iv) if the lessee makes any default in

payment of royalty as required by section 9
128
or commits a breach of any of the conditions

of the lease, the lessor shall give notice
to the lessee requiring him to pay the
royalty or remedy the breach, as the case may
be, within sixty days from the date of the
receipt of the notice and if the royalty is
not paid or the breach is not remedied within
such period, the lessor without prejudice to
any proceeding that may be taken against the
lessee determine the lease;
(v) the lessee may determine the lease at any

time by giving not less than one year’s
notice in writing to lessor.”
125. 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. Rule 27(5) and
Rule 45(iv) is also relevant to notice. Rule 27(5)
provides as follows:-
”27(5) If the lessee makes any default in the

payment of royalty as required under section
9 or payment of dead rent as required under
section 9A or commits a breach of any of the
conditions specified in sub-rules (1), (2)
and (3), except the condition referred to in
clause (f) of sub-rule (1), the State
Government shall give notice to the lessee
requiring him to pay the royalty or dead rent
or remedy the breach, as the case may be,
within sixty days from the date of the
receipt of the notice and if the royalty or
dead rent is not paid or the breach is not
remedied within the said period, the State
129
Government may, without prejudice to any

other proceedings that may be taken against
him, determine the lease and forfeit the
whole or part of the security deposit.”
126. 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. Other
provisions of Chapter V also support the above
conclusion. 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. Rule 63 in

130
Chapter V provides that previous approval of the
Central Government to be obtained through State
Government, which is to the following effect:-
“63. Previous approval of the Central

Government to be obtained through State
Government:- Where in any case previous
approval of the Central Government is
required under the Act or these rules, the
application for such approval shall be made
to the Central Government through the State
Government .”
127. Our above conclusion is reinforced when we look
into the statutory regime regarding grant of mining
lease as per the Mineral Concession Rules, which were
in force prior to enforcement of Mineral Concession
Rules, 1960. 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

131
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.” As noted above, 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. Rule 47(iv) of
the Rules, 1949 is as follows:-
“47. Conditions of mining lease : - A mining

lease granted by a private person shall be
subject to the following condition:-
XXXXXXX
(iv) the provisions of clauses (i), (ii),
(iii), (iv), (v), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x),
(xi0 and (xv) of sub-rule (1) of rule 41 shall
apply to such lease with the modification
that in clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (xv)
for the words "State Government" the word
"lessor" shall be substituted;
XXXXXXXXX”
132
128. 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 as noted above. 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.

133
129. 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 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.
130. We, thus, conclude that 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. Issue
No.4 is answered accordingly.

134
Point No.5
131. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel
appearing for the State of Meghalaya has submitted that
State of Meghalaya has no control over the mining of
the coal by owners of the minerals since it is the
owners, who have right to carry on mining, which has
been traditionally going on in the State of Meghalaya
for last several decades. To find out as to whether
State of Meghalaya has any statutory control over the
mining operations in State of Meghalaya, which is going
on for last several decades, we have to examine the
statutory provisions governing the field.
132. We have already held that provisions of MMRD
Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 are
applicable in the Hills Districts of the State of
Meghalaya. We, in the present case, are concerned with
the mining of coal, which is a major mineral as per the
Act, 1957 and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Rule 42
of Chapter V of the Rules, 1960 provides for
restrictions on the grant of prospecting licence and
mining lease, which is to the following effect:-

135
“42. Restrictions on the grant of prospecting

licence and mining lease:- (1) No prospecting
licence or mining lease shall be granted to
any person unless he has filed an affidavit
stating that he has–
(i) filed up-to-date income tax returns;
(ii) paid the income tax assessed on him,

and
(iii) paid the income tax on the basis of

self-assessment as provided in the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961).
(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.”
133. 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

136
statutory and without any exception State Government
cannot say that it has no role to play with regard to
mining of coal. All applications for previous approval
of Central Government has to be routed through State
Government. There are other rules in Chapter V itself,
which provides for control of the State government in
the mining of coal. Rule 50 empowers the provision for
prohibition of working of mines by the State
Government, which is to the following effect:-
“50. Prohibition of working of mines:- If the

State Government has reason to believe that
the grant or transfer of a prospecting
licence or a mining lease or of any right,
title or interest in such licence or lease
is in contravention of any of the provisions
of this chapter, the State Government may,
after giving the parties an opportunity to
represent their views and with the approval
of the Central Government, direct the parties
concerned not to undertake any prospecting
or mining operations in the area to which the
licence or lease relates.”
134. The above rule 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

137
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 51 requires a mining lease to
furnish to the State Government such returns and
statements as may be prescribed. Rule 52 provides for
penalty, which is to the following effect:-
“52. Penalty:- (1) If the holder of a

prospecting licence or a mining lease or his
transferee or assignee fails, without
sufficient cause, to furnish the documents
or information, or returns referred to in
rule 46, rule 47, rule 48, or rule 51, or
acts in any manner in contravention of rule
49 or rule 50, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
one year or fine which may extend to five
thousand rupees or with both.
(2) If any person grants or transfers or

obtains a prospecting licence or mining lease
or any right, title or interest therein, in
contravention of any of the provisions of
this chapter, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to one year or
fine which may extend to five thousand rupees
or both.”
138
135. 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.
136. The State was advised by the Comptroller and
Auditor General of India in its report ended 31st March,
2013 in para 4.5.1 that to regulate mining by following
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957. Para 7.5.8 of the same report has made the
following as recommendation No.1:
“Recommendation No.1: The M&G Department

should take necessary measures to regulate
mining in the State in accordance with the
provisions of the MMDR Act and Rules
thereunder.”
137. 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

139
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 as noticed above it comes
ill from the State to contend before this Court that
there is no requirement of mining lease for winning the
minerals. The above stand of the State taken before
this Court gives the impression that instead of
implementing the Parliamentary enactment and
regulatory regime for mineral regulation some vested
interests wants to continue the illegal regime of
illegal mining to the benefit of the few persons which
is unacceptable and condemnable. We, thus, conclude
that the State of Meghalaya has jurisdiction and power
to ensure that no mining of coal should take place
except when a mining lease granted under Mineral
Concession Rules, 1960, Chapter V, as discussed above.

140
Point No.6
138. One more point which needs to be considered is
as to whether power to allot land for mining purpose
is vested in Autonomous District Council? The
submission on behalf of one of the Autonomous District
Council which is the appellant before us as well as on
behalf of State of Meghalaya is that Autonomous
District Council being constitutional authority
constituted under Schedule VI of the Constitution has
legislative and administrative power. Reference to
various legislation framed by Autonomous District
Council which received the assent of the Governor has
also been relied on. Para 3 of Schedule VI enumerates
the power of District Council and regional council to
make laws which we have extracted above.
139. Certain legislation framed by District Council
has also been referred namely 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,

141
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. We have already noticed above
that 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 be denuded in so far as regulation
and development of minerals to the extent which is
covered by 1957 Act. We may refer to one 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. Rule 4 is as follows:
"4. Form of License.-
....
(5) License in form 'E' shall be issued for

the mining of minerals and the sale or
purchase of minerals accruing from the
autonomous district and for the import of
minerals into the autonomous district for
sale therein as specified in Part 'E' of the
142
First Schedule on payment of prescribed

license fee subject to the conditions
specified in the license..
. . . . ”
140. It is relevant to notice that 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,
Section 18. Rules, 1959 is still in force in Khasi
Hills Autonomous Districts, since, no other regulations
have been placed before us repealing the Rules, 1959.
In Regulations, 2011, one aspect needs to be noted in
Section 2, which is definition clause. By clause
(viii), “trade” has been defined, which is to the
following effect:-
“(viii) "Trade" means any trade involving

buying and selling or business for profit and
includes exchange of goods or commodities or
business or import, export and transport of
goods/commodities or entry of goods into
market for sale or trade and business such as
construction works or other work rendered by
the contractor or his agent and it also
includes person and persons engaged by such
contractor or agent or any other profession
or vocation such as barber, cobbler,
tailoring, cattle rearing (which include
piggery, goatary, poultry) milk and dairy
143
products, automobiles making or repairing,

electrician, furniture makers, pharmacist,
physician, transport and any other similar
vocation or profession and the term "trade"
and "trading" shall be construed accordingly.”
141. The grant of licenses contemplated by
Regulations are only with respect to the “trade” as
defined in 2(viii). The entire Regulations do not
refer to any kind of trade in mining of coal or mining
operations. Thus, the Regulations, 2011 have nothing
to do with the mining of coal.
142. Constitutional provisions of Schedule VI are
also relevant to be noticed. Paragraph 9 of the
Schedule VI refers to Licences or leases for the
purpose of prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals.
Para 9 is as follows: -
“9. Licences or leases for the purpose of

prospecting for, or extraction of, minerals.
-
(1) Such share of the royalties accruing each

year from licences or leases for the purpose
of prospecting for, or the extraction of,
minerals granted by [the Government of the
State] in respect of any area within an
autonomous district as may be agreed upon
between [the Government of the State] and the
District Court of such district shall be made
over to that District Council.
144
(2) If any dispute arises as to the share of

such royalties to be made over to a District
Council, it shall be referred to the Governor
for determination and the amount determined
by the Governor in his discretion shall be
deemed to be the amount payable under sub-
paragraph(1) of this paragraph to the
District Council and the decision of the
Governor shall be final.”
143. Para 9(1) 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 refers to
licences or leases for extraction of minerals granted
by the Government of the State. 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

145
any law which may be repugnant to the provisions of the
Parliamentary Act.
144. We, thus, are of the view that 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.
POINT NOS. 7 & 8
145. This Court in State of Tamil Nadu versus M/s
Hind Stone and others, 1981 (2) SCC 205, speaking
through Chinnappa Reddy,J., has made following weighty
observations: -
“6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other

resources constitute a Nation's natural
wealth. These resources are not to be
frittered away and exhausted by any one
generation. Every generation owes a duty to
all succeeding generations to develop and
conserve the natural resources of the nation
in the best possible way. It is in the
interest of mankind. It is in the interest
of the nation. It is recognised by
Parliament. Parliament has declared that it
is expedient in the public interest that the
Union should take under its control the
regulation of mines and the development of
minerals. It has enacted the Mines and
Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,
1957.....”
146
146. No one can dispute the underlying object in the
above observations of this Court. The use of natural
resources also 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. In
this context, reference be made to the three-Judge
Bench judgment of this Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining
(pvt.) Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others, 2011(7) SCC
338. In para 75, following legal position was noticed:
“75. Universal human dependence on the use

of environmental resources for the most basic
needs renders it impossible to refrain from
altering the environment. As a result,
environmental conflicts are ineradicable and
environmental protection is always a matter
of degree, inescapably requiring choices as
to the appropriate level of environmental
protection and the risks which are to be
regulated. This aspect is recognised by the
concepts of “sustainable development”. It is
equally well settled by the decision of this
Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of
India that environment has different facets
and care of the environment is an ongoing
process. These concepts rule out the
formulation of an across-the-board principle
147
as it would depend on the facts of each case

whether diversion in a given case should be
permitted or not, barring “no go” areas
(whose identification would again depend on
undertaking of due diligence exercise). In
such cases, the margin of appreciation
doctrine would apply.”
147. Now we come back to the order of NGT dated
17.04.2014 by which Tribunal prohibited the Rathole
mining/illegal mining throughout the State of
Meghalaya. We have noticed above that in OA No.73 of
2014 wherein the above 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. The
Court also noticed the report of Professor Dr.O.P.Singh
which noticed that the Meghalaya Pollution Control
Board in the year 1997 has submitted the report about
the environmental pollution consequent to illegal
mining.
148. Learned Amicus Curiae has invited our attention
to report of Comptroller and Auditor General for the
year ending 31st March, 2013, where the Comptroller and
Auditor General has noticed that due to Acid Mine
Drainage several locations of Lukha River were

148
severally polluted. The report also referred to
investigation by the Meghalaya State Pollution Control
Board in November 2011 and noticed that no effective
steps were taken to control AMD. Paragraph 7.5.23.1 of
the report is as follows: -
“7.5.23.1 Pollution of rivers due to Acid

Mine Drainage from coal mines
Based on media reports relating to

pollution of Lukha river in Jaintia Hills,
the Meghalaya State Pollution Board (MSPCB)
conducted (November 2011) an investigation
to ascertain the water quality of the Lukha
River and its feeding streams in Jaintia
Hills District vis-a-vis a similar
investigation carried out in February 2007.
For this purpose, eight water and sediment
samples were collected from the same sampling
locations investigated during 2007. The
findings are as follows: -
Table 1.6
Station pH Iron(mg/I) Sulphate(mg/I)
BIS norms BIS norms:0.3 BIS
6.5-8.5 norms:200.0
2007 2011 2007 2011 2007 2011
St.1 3.0 2.7 3.6 6.2 254.0 566.5
St.2 7.5 5.0 0.13 5.4 13.4 305.0
St.3 6.8 7.3 0.17 0.4 62.0 8.69
St.4 4.5 4.3 0.46 4.8 211.8 265.0
St.5 6.3 5.0 0.32 1.2 188.8 200.0
St.6 4.3 6.2 0.372 0.26 192.1 118.2
St.7 7.9 8.2 1.35 0.18 99.0 29.04
St.8 7.8 8.1 0.3 0.28 101.5 45.6
149
The water quality characteristics in terms

of pH, Sulphate and Iron concentrations with
respect to Stations 1,2,4 and 5 indicated
that there is significant deterioration of
water quality in comparison to that of the
year 2007 the major cause of which was the
AMD from coal mining in these areas.
The investigation made by the MSPCB further

revealed that the river water on the entire
stretch of the sampling locations was not
suitable for drinking purpose......”
149. Tribunal being satisfied from the materials on
record has issued the order dated 17.04.2014 which
cannot be faulted in the facts and materials which are
on record in the present case. One more fact in the
above context need to be noticed i.e. after the order
dated 17.04.2014, several applicants including the
appellants of Civil Appeal No.5272 of 2016 filed
application for vacating the ban which was not acceded
to by the Tribunal. Subsequently the NGT permitted
transportation of coal till 15.05.2016 and directed
that after 15.05.2016, all coal within the State of
Meghalaya shall vest in the State.
150. The tribunal after considering all pleas and
materials including reports submitted by the committees
affirmed the order dated 17.04.2014 and refused to

150
withdraw the ban. We do not find any error in the order
of NGT reaffirming its ban order in the facts of the
present case. But the question which has been raised
by the appellant before this Court is that whether the
complete ban as imposed by the NGT deserves to be
vacated or modified in the interest of the State and
tribals. 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.
151. Though as discussed above 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. We thus
clarify that in event mining operations are undertaken

151
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 Mineral
Concessions Rule, 1960, 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 the ban order cannot be extended to valid and legal
mining as per 1957 Act and 1960 Rules.
Point Nos.9 and 10
152. The appellants contend that the NGT has no
jurisdiction to constitute any committee. The NGT vide
its different orders has constituted different
committees for submitting reports for different
purposes. The Constitution of which committees are
sought to be challenged on the ground that the NGT has
no jurisdiction to constitute a committee. Similarly,
order of the Tribunal directing for constituting a
fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and
Restoration Fund has been challenged on the ground that

152
the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to constitute any
fund.
153. What are the powers and jurisdiction of the
Tribunal given under the National Green Tribunal Act,
2010 has to be looked into to consider the above
submission? In so far as jurisdiction of the Tribunal
is concerned, we have already noticed Sections 14, 15,
and 16 of the Act. Section 19 of the Act deals with
procedure and powers of the of the Tribunal. Section
19 which is relevant for the present case is as follows:
“19. Procedure and powers of Tribunal. –

(1). The Tribunal shall not be bound by the
procedure laid down by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the
principles of natural justice.
(2). Subject to the provisions of this Act,
the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its
own procedure.
(3). The Tribunal shall also not be bound
by the rules of evidence contained in the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(4). The Tribunal shall have, for the
purposes of discharging its functions under
this Act, the same powers as are vested in a
civil court under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit, in
respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any person and examining
him on oath;
153
(b) requiring the discovery and

production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) subject to the provisions of
sections 123 and 124 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, requisitioning any
public record or document or copy of
such record or document from any
office;
(e) issuing commissions for the
examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) reviewing its decision;
(g) dismissing an application for
default or deciding it ex parte;
(h) setting aside any order of
dismissal of any application for
default or any order passed by it ex
parte;
(i) pass an interim order (including
granting an injunction or stay) after
providing the parties concerned an
opportunity to be heard, on any
application made or appeal filed under
this Act;
(j) pass an order requiring any person
to cease and desist from committing or
causing any violation of any enactment
specified in Schedule I;
(k) any other matter which may be
prescribed.
5. All proceedings before the Tribunal

shall be deemed to be the judicial
proceedings within the meaning of sections
193, 219 and 228 for the purposes of section
196 of the Indian Penal Code and the Tribunal
shall be deemed to be a civil court for the
154
purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
154. Sub-section (1) of Section 19 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(2) confers vide powers on the Tribunal in so far as
its procedure is concerned. 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

155
relevant for present inquiry. Order XXVI Rule 10A
provides as follows:
“Order XXVI Rule 10A.Commission for

scientific investigations"- (1) 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 it 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.
(2) The provisions of rule 10 of this Order

shall, as far as may be, apply in relation
to a Commissioner appointed under this rule
as they apply in relation to a Commissioner
appointed under rule 9.”
155. Rule 10A 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

156
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. We do not, thus, find any dearth of
jurisdiction in the NGT to appoint a committee to
submit a report. We may further say that 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) as noticed above.
156. There is one more provision which throws
considerable light on the above. 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

157
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. Rule 24 which
is relevant for the present case is as follows:
“Section 24. Order and directions in certain

cases.- The Tribunal may make such orders or
give such directions as may be necessary or
expedient to give effect to its order or to
prevent abuse of its process or to secure the
ends of justice.”
157. 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 vide 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 vide discretion.

158
158. Professor Justice G.P. Singh, in Principles of
Statutory Interpretation, 14th Edition while dealing
with enabling word says:
“Ordinarily, the words ‘May’ and ‘It shall

be lawful’ are not words of compulsion. They
are enabling words and they only confer
capacity, power or authority and imply
discretion. “They are both used in a statute
to indicate that something may be done which
prior to it could not be done”. The use of
words ‘Shall have power” also connotes the
same idea.”
159. 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 vide 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.
160. 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

159
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. In
this regard reference is made to judgment of this Court
in L. Hirday Narain vs. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly,
1970(2) SCC 355, where this Court was examining
provision empowering authority to do something. This
Court laid down in paragraph 14:
“14. The High Court observed that under

Section 35 of the Indian Income Tax. Act,
1922, the jurisdiction of the Income Tax
Officer is discretionary. If thereby it is
intended that the Income Tax Officer has
discretion to exercise or not to exercise the
power to rectify, that view is in our
judgment erroneous. Section 35 enacts that
the Commissioner or Appellate Assistant
Commissioner or the Income Tax Officer may
rectify any mistake apparent from the record.
If a statute invests a public officer with
authority to do an act in a specified set of
circumstances, it is imperative upon him to
exercise his authority in a manner
appropriate to the case when a party
interested and having a right to apply moves
in that behalf and circumstances for exercise
of authority are shown to exist. Even if the
words used in the statute are prima facie
enabling the Courts will readily infer a duty
to exercise power which is invested in aid
of enforcement of a right — public or private
— of a citizen.”
160
161. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that
there is no lack 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.
162. Now coming to the challenge to the Fund which
has been constituted by the Tribunal, namely,
“Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration
Fund”, it is useful to notice the observation of the
Tribunal in its order dated March 25, 2015 by which the
said Fund was created. The reasons for constitution of
Fund are self-explanatory which are to the following
effect:
“It is also undisputable that there has been

huge environmental degradation and pollution
of the waterbody in the State of Meghalaya,
because of this illegal, unscientific mining.
No one has even thought of restoration of the
area in question, to bring to some 16 extent,
if not completely, restoration of ecology and
environment in question. Serious steps are
required to be taken for cleaning polluted
waterbodies and ensure that no further
pollution is caused by this activity and the
activity which would be permitted to be
carried on finally including transportation
of coal. On the basis of `Polluter Pay
Principle’. We direct that the State
Government shall in addition to the royalty
payable to it, shall also collect 10% on the
market value of the coal for every
consignment. Having heard the learned Counsel
161
appearing for the parties and keeping in view

the notifications of the Central Government
dated 10.05.2012 and that of the State
Government dated 22.06.2012, we may notice
that in the report of Comptroller and Auditor
General of India for the period ending 31st
March, 2013 under 7.5.18 of Chapter 7 of
which the invoice value of the coal has been
taken Rs. 4850/- per metric tonne. Thus, we
direct that the State Government shall in
addition to the royalty payable to it, also
collect 10% of the said market value of the
coal per metric tonne from each person. The
amount so collected shall be deposited in the
account to be titled as ‘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.
This amount shall only be used for

restoration of environment and for necessary
remedial and preventive measures in regard
to environment and matters related thereto”
163. As noticed above the NGT could have passed any
order or direction to secure ends of justice which
power especially conferred by Rule 24 as noticed above,
direction to constitute Fund is thus also saved under
such power.
Point No.11
164. In respect of constitution of committee by the
Tribunal there are two other limbs of submission; that,

162
(1) NGT by constituting committees has delegated
essential judicial power to the committee; (2) the
Constitution of committees encroaches the
constitutional scheme of administration of Tribal areas
under Article 244(2) read with Sixth Schedule of the
Constitution.
165. The Tribunal vide 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.
166. Now, we come to the Katakey committee which was
constituted by the Tribunal on 31.08.2018. In
paragraphs 14 and 15, the Tribunal while directing for
constitution of committee headed by Justice B.P.
Katakey directed:
“14. Only last question which remains is of

restoration of the environment and
163
rehabilitation of the victims for which funds

are available. We are of the view that for
this task, it will appropriate that we
constitute an independent Committee. This
Committee will be headed by Justice B.P.
Katoki, Former Judge of the Guwahati 8 Item
Nos. 06 to 10 August 31, 2018 R High Court
with representatives from Central Pollution
Control Board and Indian School of Mines,
Dhanbad.
15. The Committee will take the following
steps:
• Take stock of all actions taken so far in
this regard.
• Prepare time bound action plan to deal with
the issue and ensure its implementation.”
167. The Constitution of the committee and its
functions entrusted were with the object to implement
the orders passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has
already directed for preparing a scheme for the
restoration of the environment and ecology. The
environment and ecology restoration plan was submitted
before the Tribunal along with the affidavit dated
03.10.2017 as has been noticed in the order dated
02.01.2018 of the NGT. In the constitution of Katakey
committee, thus, it cannot be said that essential
judicial functions were delegated to the committee by
the Tribunal. For the restoration of environment NGT

164
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. We,
thus, do not accept the submission of the appellant
that the essential judicial powers of the NGT had been
delegated to the committee. Looking to the enormous
work of restoration of environment which has to be
supervised on the spot the committee was constituted.
We, however, observe that 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.
168. Now, we come to the second limb, that the
constitution of the committee encroaches the
constitutional scheme of the Tribal areas. We revert
back to the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Para 3

165
of the Sixth Schedule enumerates the powers of the
District Council and Regional Council to make laws.
The powers of the District and Regional Councils are
enumerated under paragraph 3. In the directions of the
Tribunal 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
Tribunal 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 the
Tribunal is only concerned with the Environmental
degradation and illegal coal mining. The committees’
report or direction of the Tribunal in no manner

166
encroaches upon the administration of Tribal areas by
the District and Regional Councils.
Point No.12
169. The NGT vide its order dated 04.01.2019
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 above
direction has filed Civil Appeal No.2968 of 2019. We
have already noticed the submission of Shri Amrendra
Sharan, Senior Advocate.
170. Shri Colin Gonsalves, learned Amicus Curiae has
refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the appellant. It is submitted that despite the
specific ban on coal mining by order dated 17.04.2014
in the entire State, illegal coal mining had been going
on, which was proved from the reports and pictures
referred to in the report. The State is responsible
and constitutionally obligated to provide clean
environment to every citizen. They having entirely
failed to stop the illegal mining, which is cause of
degradation of pollution including pollution of river

167
streams, the Tribunal has rightly directed the State
of Meghalaya to deposit Rs.100 Crores. Shri Gonsalves
submits that in spite of State Pollution Control Board
as well as Comptroller Auditor General having invited
the attention of the State of Meghalaya towards serious
pollution especially in the river water, no steps were
taken by the State of Meghalaya. It is further
submitted that restoration of environment requires
carrying out various projects and unless the State
provides for necessary fund and finances, the
restoration of damaged environment cannot be
undertaken. It is further submitted that State had
collected huge fund Rs.4,33,07,26,731/-, which amount
had not been spent by the State, although, it was
required to take steps for restoration of environment.
171. The NGT vide 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. By subsequent order dated
19.09.2018 issued by the Tribunal, additional Chief

168
Secretary to Government of Meghalaya was made the
Member Secretary/Coordinator for proper functioning of
the committee. 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. In Para 12(g),
following has been stated by the committee:-
“12(g) Presentation was also made by the

Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board on
the coal mine activities and its impact on
the land used, water quality, air quality,
ecology as well as socio-economic impact. The
Committee, on the basis of the said
presentation, found the following:-
(i) Continuation of coal mine activities

for a long time in an unplanned and
unscientific manner as well as without
any pollution control measures.
(ii) Such mining activities are generating

huge ecological disturbances and
negative environmental impacts.
(iii) Water in rivers and streams in the

mining areas have become highly acidic
in nature with pH value of 2.7 since
1991-92 due to presence of high
percentage of sulphur in coal, which
reacts after mixing with oxygen in air
and water giving rise to AMD problem.
169
No difference of pH level of water in

rivers, streams and mine drains have
been noticed during monsoon.
(iv) pH level of water in springs, taps

water and hand pumps also found to be
less than permissible limit of
drinking water standards.
(v) Absence of biological life in the

water bodies.
(vi) Ambient air quality of the coal mining

areas and coal storage areas exceeds
the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards on few occasions.
(vii) Requirement of urgent steps to be

taken to generate social awareness
about the adverse environmental
impacts and the health hazards
associated with unplanned and
unscientific coal mining activities.
172. Action plans for restoration of environment
were also discussed and finalised.
173. On detailed discussion on Issue No.(A),
committee with details including photographs and maps
observed following:-
“(vi) From the aforesaid materials available

before the Committee, it is, therefore,
evident that the coal mining activities,
which includes the extraction of coal and
transportation, is going on in the State of
170
Meghalaya, at least in East Jaintia Hills

District, where such mining activities are
most, despite the ban imposed by the Hon’ble
NGT vide its order dated 17.04.2014. Very
sincere and honest efforts are required on
the part of the State Government to stop the
mining activities, which are going on. Such
mining activities are going on without
adopting any safety measures for the workers
and without caring for adverse environmental
affect. A sincere desire to stop such illegal
mining activities is also necessary on the
part of the State and Central Government
agencies for implementation and monitoring of
health, safety and environmental
regulations.
(vii) The result of ongoing un-abetted

illegal mining, despite the ban imposed by
the NGT, is the very tragic incident occurred
very recently on 13.12.2018 in a coal mine
in Ksan Village near Lytein River under
Saipung Police Station in East Jaintia Hills
District, where 15(fifteen) coal mine workers
are reported trapped, while they were working
in the mine. Unfortunately, none of them so
far could be rescued. For the said incident,
Saipung Police Station Case No.15(12)/2018
under Section 188/304A/34 IPC read with
Section 3(2)(d) of PDPP Act and Section 21(1)
of MM(R&D) Act against the coal mine owner
has been registered. A Magisterial enquiry
to find out the facts and circumstances
leading to the said incident, has also been
directed.”
174. The fact that on 13.12.2018, 15 coal mine
workers were trapped in an ongoing coal mining
operation, who all have been reported to be dead itself
proves beyond any shade of doubt that order dated

171
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.
175. The first submission raised by Shri Amrendra
Sharan challenging the order is violation of principles
of natural justice. The report dated 31.12.2018 of the
committee itself in issue No. f(iv) noticed: -
“Website has been opened and all the

proceedings of the Committee are uploaded in
the said website.”
176. The report being placed on website on
31.12.2018 itself, there is no question of serving copy
of the report of the committee to the Stakeholders. It
is further relevant to notice that 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

172
coordinator/ Additional Chief Secretary of the State
of Meghalaya.
177. A perusal of the order dated 04.01.2019, which
is impugned in the appeal indicates that although
learned counsel for 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. As noticed above, the
NGT vide 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

173
committee that an amount of Rs.433 Crores is already
lying in the said fund, which has not been spent.
178. Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much
emphasis that there had been no calculation of the
extent of damage nor Tribunal could have arrived at on
the amount of damages to the extent of Rs.100 Crores,
which was directed to be deposited by the State of
Meghalaya with the Central Pollution Control Board.
179. We are of the view that 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. We further agree with the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellant that the said
amount cannot be said to be amount of damages to be
paid by the State. We further find force in the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
that 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

174
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 the Tribunal (NGT) shall utilise the aforesaid
amount of Rs.100 Crores only for restoration of the
environment. The appeal is thus, partly allowed to the
above extent.
Point No.13
180. Vide order dated 31.03.2016, the NGT had
permitted transportation of coal till 15.5.2016 under
terms and conditions as enumerated therein. The order
dated 31.3.2016 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.

175
181. The main grievance of the appellant is that NGT
could not have directed for vesting of coal in the
State. The submission is that members of the appellant-
association have proprietary rights in the coal with
which they could not be divested by the Tribunal. We
have already held that private owners of the land are
also owners of the minerals and the minerals belong to
the owners/Tribals. We have also found that coal mining
was illegally going on unregulated by any statutory law
in the Hills District of State of Meghalaya without
there being any mining lease. The entire mining was,
thus, is clear in contravention of Section 4(1) of Act,
1957 which attracted penalties under Section 21.
Section 21 of the Act is as follows:
“21. Penalties.―(1) Whoever contravenes the

provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section
(1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
five years and with fine which may extend to
five lakh rupees per hectare of the area.
(2) Any rule made under any provision of this

Act may provide that any contravention
thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to two years or
with fine which may extend to five lakh
rupees, or with both, and in the case of a
continuing contravention, with additional
fine which may extend to fifty thousand
rupees for every day during which such
176
contravention continues after conviction for

the first such contravention.
(3) Where any person trespasses into any land

in contravention of the provisions of sub-
section (1) of section 4, such trespasser may
be served with an order of eviction by the
State Government or any authority authorised
in this behalf by that Government and the
State Government or such authorised authority
may, if necessary, obtain the help of the
police to evict the trespasser from the land.
(4) Whenever any person raises, transports

or causes to be raised or transported,
without any lawful authority, any mineral
from any land, and, for that purpose, uses
any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other
thing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle
or any other thing shall be liable to be
seized by an officer or authority specially
empowered in this behalf. (4A) Any mineral,
tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing
seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable
to be confiscated by an order of the court
competent to take cognizance of the offence
under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed
of in accordance with the directions of such
court.
(5) Whenever any person raises, without any

lawful authority, any mineral from any land,
the State Government may recover from such
person the mineral so raised, or, where such
mineral has already been disposed of, the
price thereof, and may also recover from such
person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may
be, for the period during which the land was
occupied by such person without any lawful
authority.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
177
an offence under sub-section (1) shall be

cognizable.”
182. 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. We, thus, are of the view that

178
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.
Point No.14
183. Several I.A.s have been filed by different
applicants seeking direction to transport already
extracted coal lying at different places in hills
districts of State of Meghalaya. Different applicants
may claim to different quantities of coal situate at
different places. By our order dated 10.05.2019, we
have already permitted transportation of balance coal
to the extent of 75050 MTs for which challans were
already issued after the order of this Court dated
04.12.2018. The above quantity of said 75050 MTs. was
balance quantity out of 176655 Mts., for transportation
of which order was passed by this Court on 04.12.2018.
In addition to the aforesaid quantity, claim with
regard to different quantities by different applicants
has been laid. It is not necessary for the purpose of
the present case to notice different quantities and

179
claims of different persons for transportation. After
the order of the NGT dated 31.08.2018, the State of
Meghalaya has constituted committees to assist the
Commissioner and Secretary, Mining and Geology to
prepare a separate inventory with regard to coal not
so far recorded in the inventory available with the
NGT. In pursuance of said direction, as contained in
paragraph No.13 of the order, steps were taken and
various committees had made certain assessments with
regard to different quantities of coal lying in four
Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya. Katakey
committee Report dated 31.12.2018 has in chart noticed
the different quantities as was informed by letter
dated 13.11.2018 to Commissioner and Secretary to the
Government of Meghalaya. While dealing with issue
No.3, in paragraph Nos.(iii), (iv) and (v), following
has been stated:-
“(iii) The Commissioner & Secretary to the

Government of Meghalaya, Mining & Geology
Department, in the ATR submitted on
13.11.2018 has stated about the availability
of 176655 MTs of already inventorised coal
for transportation, which has also been
reflected in the order dated 04.12.2018
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The
Commissioner & Secretary, in the said ATR,
has also stated that 23,25,663.54 MTs of
180
coal, other than those inventorized coal,

remained un-inventorized and available for
transportation, district-wise break up of
which is as follows:-
“REPORT ON EXTRACTED COAL REFLECTED AS

UN-ASSESSED OR NIL IN THE INVENTORY
APPROVED BY NGT
Sl. Name of Declared Assessed
No. District Quantity in Quantity in
MT MT
1. East Jaintia 15,46,687.00 13,22,379.00
Hills District
2. West Khasi 7,29,757.00 7,78,297.99
Hills District
3. South-West 1,25,600.63 2,14,145.55
Khasi Hills
District
4. South Garo 12,834.00 10,841.00
Hills District
Total 24,14,878.63 23,25,663.54”
(iv) From the aforesaid District wise break

up of extracted coal, which was un-
inventorised, it appears that the quantity
of such coal was highest in East Jaintia
Hills District, where the Deputy
Commissioner, as noticed above, has admitted
ongoing coal mining activities despite the
ban imposed by the Hon’ble NGT vide order
dated 17.04.2014. The stand of the Government
that the quantity of coal, as reflected in
the aforesaid chart were mined prior to the
said ban, appears to be not acceptable, in
view of the aforesaid admission of the Deputy
Commissioner and also what the Committee has
noticed during its field visit on 12.11.2018.
It seems that there is an attempt to show the
freshly mined coal, i.e. the coal mined after
the ban imposed by the Hon’ble NGT, as the
coal left out from the assessment and
remained un-inventorised though mined prior
to the said ban. The Committee also
181
apprehends that such freshly mined coal may

be transported taking advantage of the order
dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
(v) The Hon’ble NGT vide its order dated

31.08.2018 given the responsibility of going
through the said issue to the Secretary of
Mining, State of Meghalaya in the first
instance and to be cross-checked by the Joint
Team of representatives of the Central
Pollution Control Board and India School of
Mines, Dhanbad. As reported, no such cross-
check has so far been made.”
184. The State of Meghalaya has filed additional
affidavit dated 06.04.2019 of Commissioner and
Secretary to the Government of Meghalaya, Mining and
Geology Department, where details of assessments made
by committees appointed by the State of Meghalaya has
been brought on the record. In the affidavit, it has
also been stated that a technical committee was also
constituted to perform the verification of the
assessments made by the Deputy Commissioners of
respective districts. As per the affidavit, assessment
of extracted coal stocks in above four districts is
32,56,715 MTs whereas in the report submitted by
Katakey committee, the said figure in the above four
districts is 23,25,663.54 MTs. Technical committee

182
submitted their report, which have been brought on the
record alongwith the Additional Affidavit verifying the
assessed quantities. In the affidavit of the
Commissioner and Secretary, it has also been sated that
the technical committees have submitted that it is
difficult to define with certainty that which coal was
mined prior to ban in 2014 and mined after 2014. From
the above it is clear that the State Government itself
has come with a case that huge quantity of coal in the
four hills districts, which has been extracted is lying
waiting for orders of transportation. Learned Amicus
Curiae and Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel
have refuted the claim made by the applicants as well
as the State of Meghalaya. It is submitted by learned
Amicus Curiae that in fact State is not making any
effort to stop the illegal mining, in spite of the ban
of 17.04.2014, illegal mining of coal has been
permitted and now such illegal mined coal has also been
assessed and State also supports the claim of
transportation of the applicants on the guise that coal
lying in open is an environmental hazard.

183
185. Shri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel
appearing for private respondents in C.A. No.5272 of
2016 has submitted that the State auctioned coal on a
meagre price, whereas market rate of the coal is
approximately Rs.10,000/- per MT. In the present case,
we have noticed that 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.
186. We accept the suggestion of learned Amicus
Curiae that entire extracted coal lying at various
places be directed to be taken over by Coal India Ltd,
a Government of India unit, who may dispose of the same

184
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 aforesaid 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.
187. 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.

185
188. We direct that Commissioner and Secretary of
the State in the Department of Mining and Geology
alongwith the officers of Coal India Ltd. may
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.
Receiving fair value of the coal should be a concern
of both the owners and State. 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 goes without saying that 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

186
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.

187
189. Another aspect of the matter is also to be
noticed. 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, is
not to be dealt with as directed above. The said seized
coal shall 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.
190. We, thus, are of the view that 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. Let the Katakey
committee in consultation with State of Meghalaya and
officers of Coal India Ltd. finalise appropriate mode
and manner to affect the transport and disposal of the
coal in the above manner.

188
Conclusions: -
191. From the foregoing discussions we arrived at
following conclusions:-
1) The application O.A.No.73 of 2014 has clearly
made out allegations which were sufficient for
the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction as
conferred by Section 14 of the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010. Both the component as
appearing in sub-section 1 of Section 14 that
is (i) substantial question relating to
environment and (ii) such question arises out
of the implementation of the enactments
specified in Schedule I, were present.
2) The allegations of the applicant of O.A.No.73
of 2014 of environmental degradation by illegal
and unregulated coal mining were fully proved
from materials on the record including the
report of the experts, report of the Meghalaya
State Pollution Control Board, the report of
Katakey committee, which all proved

189
environmental degradation of water, air and
surface.
3) The stand taken on behalf of the State of
Meghalaya before this Court that the Tribunal
has no jurisdiction cannot be approved. The
State Government 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.
4) According to the land tenure system as
applicable 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 rights.
5) Para 12A sub-clause (b) of Sixth Schedule of
the Constitution empowers that the President
may, with respect to any Act of Parliament, by

190
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 Section 12A(b). 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.
6) There is nothing in Section 4(1) of 1957 Act to
indicate that restriction contained in Section
4(1) does not apply with regard to privately
owned/community owned land in Hills Districts
of Meghalaya. 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

191
Act” are also significant which make the intent
and purpose of prohibition clear and loud.
7) 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,
i.e., land in which minerals vest in the
Government, and the land in which minerals vest
in a person other than the Government.
8) The 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.

192
9) 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.
10) In Hill District of State of Meghalaya for
carrying coal mining operations in privately
owned/community owned land it is not the State
Government which shall grant the mining lease
under Chapter V of Rules, 1960, but it is the
private owner/community owner of the land, who
is also the owner of the mineral, who shall
grant lease for mining of coal as per provisions
of Chapter V of Rules, 1960 after obtaining

193
previous approval of the Central Government
through the State Government.
11) The State of Meghalaya has ample power and
jurisdiction under the Act, 1957 and Rules,
1960 to check, control and prohibit coal mining
operations in Hill Districts of State of
Meghalaya.
12) The Union having made declaration by Section 2
of 1957 Act taking under its control regulation
and development of mineral, the power of
Autonomous District Council to legislate on the
subject shall also be denuded as that of the
State Legislature.
13) In event the mining is carried out by a mining
lease holder as per the provisions of Act, 1957
and Rules, 1960 with an approved mining plan
there can be no objections in carrying of such
mining operations under the regulation and
control of the State of Meghalaya. We clarify
that in event mining operations are undertaken

194
in privately owned/community owned land in
Hills Districts of Meghalaya in accordance with
mining lease with approved mining plan as per
Act, 1957 and Mineral Concessions Rule, 1960,
the ban order dated 17.04.2014 of the tribunal
of the NGT shall not come in way of carrying
mining operations.
14) Under Order 26 Rule 10A of the Civil Procedure
Code, a Court can appoint commission for
scientific investigation. The power which can
be exercised by a Court under Order 26 Rule 10A
of CPC can very well be exercised by the NGT
also. The NGT while asking expert to give a
report is not confined to the four corners of
Rule 10A and its jurisdiction is not shackled
by strict terms of Order 21 Rule 10A by virtue
of 19(1) of the NGT Act.
15) Rule 24 of National Green Tribunal (Practice
and Procedure) Rules, 2011 empowers the
Tribunal to make such orders or give such

195
directions as may be necessary or expedient to
give effect to its order or to secure the ends
of justice. The power given to the Tribunal is
coupled with duty to exercise such powers for
achieving the objects. There is no lack of
jurisdiction in NGT in directing for
appointment of a committee and to obtain a
report from a Committee.
16) The direction to constitute a fund namely
“Meghalaya Environment Protection and
Restoration Fund”, is also saved under the
above power.
17) NGT by directing for constitution of committee
has not delegated essential judicial functions.
The Tribunal had kept complete control on all
steps which were required to be taken by the
committees and has issued directions from time
to time. The State is always at liberty to
obtain appropriate directions if aggrieved by
any act of the committee. The matter being

196
pending before the Tribunal all 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.
18) NGT by issuing direction to constitute the
committee for transportation of the extracting
mineral, for preparing time bound action plan
to deal with the restoration of environment and
to ensure its implementation does not in any
manner interfere with the powers of the
District or Regional Councils. The District and
Regional Councils are free to exercise all
their powers and 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.

197
19) 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 of
Meghalaya. We accept the submissions of the
learned counsel for the appellant that State of
Meghalaya has very limited source of finances
and putting an extra burden on the State of
Meghalaya to make payment of Rs. 100 Crores
from its own financial resources 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
the Tribunal shall utilize the aforesaid amount
of Rs.100 Crores only for restoration of the
environment in the State of Meghalaya.

198
20) The coal extracted and lying in open after
15.05.2016 does not automatically vest in the
State of Meghalaya 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.
21) The suggestion of learned Amicus Curiae that
entire extracted coal lying at various places
in hills districts of Meghalaya be directed to
be taken over by Coal India Ltd. is accepted.
The Coal India Ltd. may dispose of the same as
per its normal method of disposal and proceeds
be dealt with as per directions issued.
22) The State having carried out the assessment of
the coal lying in the aforesaid four districts
including the details of the quantities and the
details of owners being available with it, it
may ensure that entire coal is handed over to
the Coal India Ltd., as per the mode and manner
to be formulated by Katakey Committee in

199
consultation with officers of the Coal India
Ltd. and the State of Meghalaya.
23) It is for 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 the
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. All concerned shall take steps to
ensure weighment of the coal when it is received
by Coal India Ltd.
24) 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

200
payment towards MERP Fund as well as taxes out
of the price of the coal. After deducting its
expenses for transportation with 10% of price
of the coal, the Coal India Ltd. shall remit
the balance 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
balance the amount to the owner.
25) The coal which has been seized by the State in
illegal transportation and illegal mining for
which different cases have been registered by
the State, is not to be dealt with as directed
above. The seized coal shall 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.
201
192. In view of the foregoing discussions and
conclusions, all these appeals are decided in the
following manner: -
1) Civil Appeal No. 10720 of 2018, Civil Appeal No.
10611 of 2018, Civil Appeal No. 10907 of 2018
and Civil Appeal No………………of 2019 (arising out of
Civil Appeal Diary No. 3067 of 2018) are
dismissed subject to declaration and
clarification of law as made above.
2) Civil Appeal No. 5272 of 2016 is allowed setting
aside the order of NGT dated 31.03.2016 to the
extent it declared that all extracted coal after
15.05.2016 shall vest in the State of Meghalaya.
3) Civil Appeal No. 2968 of 2019 is partly allowed
permitting the State of Meghalaya to transfer
the amount of Rs.100 Crores to Central Pollution
Control Board from the Meghalaya Environment
Protection and Restoration Fund which amount
shall be used by Central Pollution Control Board
only for restoration of Environment.
4) All I.As. seeking direction for transportation

202
of coal are disposed of directing: -
i) All extracted coal as assessed by State of
Meghalaya lying in different districts of
State of Meghalaya which as per order of NGT
is in custody of State of Meghalaya shall
be handed over to Coal India Ltd. for proper
disposal.
ii) The Katakey Committee after discussion with
Coal India Ltd. and State of Meghalaya shall
formulate a mechanism for transport,
weighment of all assessed coal.
iii) The Coal India Ltd. shall auction the coal
so received by it as per its best judgment
and remit the proceed to State to the extent
as directed above.
iv) All coal seized by the State for which cases
have already been registered shall be dealt
by the State in accordance with Section 21
of 1957 Act.
193. Before we close, we record our appreciation for
valuable assistance rendered by learned counsel for the

203
parties which enable us to decide several important
issues in these appeals. We also record our
appreciation for assistance rendered by learned Amicus
Curiae Shri Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate.
......................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
......................J.
( K.M. JOSEPH )
New Delhi,
July 03,2019

2018 11 1501 14662 Judgement 03-Jul-2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 11 1501 14662 Judgement 03-Jul-2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2018 11 1501 14662 Judgement 03-Jul-2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10720 OF 2018

STATE OF MEGHALAYA ...APPELLANT(S)

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10611 OF 2018

THE STATE COORDINATION COMMITTEE

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10907 OF 2018

GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION

KA HIMA NONGSTOIN LAND OWNERS,

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION

CIVIL APPEAL No. OF 2019

LBER LALOO ...APPELLANT(S)

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2968 OF 2019

STATE OF MEGHALAYA ...APPELLANT(S)

ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION

Natural resources of the country are not meant to

be consumed only by the present generation of men or

women of the region where natural resources are

deposited. These treasures of nature are for all

generations to come and for intelligent use of the

entire country. The present generation owes a duty to

preserve and conserve the natural resources of the

nation so that it may be used in the best interest of

coming generations as well and for the country as a

2. These appeals have been filed challenging various

orders passed by National Green Tribunal wherein

several directions were issued, measures to be taken

to check and combat the unregulated coal mining in

Tribal areas of State of Meghalaya which coal mining

resulted not only loss of lives but damaged the

environment of the area.

3. Civil Appeal Nos. 10720 of 2018, 10611 of 2018 and

10907 of 2018 have been filed against order dated

31.08.2018 passed by the National Green Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi. Civil Appeal No.5272 of

2016 has been filed by KA Hima Nongstoin Land Owners,

Coal Traders and Producers Association against the

order dated 10.05.2016 of the National Green Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi. Civil Appeal (Diary

No.3067) of 2018 has been filed by Lber Laloo against

order dated 25.03.2015 of National Green Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi and Civil Appeal No.2968 of

2019 has been filed against order dated 04.01.2019 of

National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi by

which State of Meghalaya has been directed to deposit

Rs.100 crores with the Central Pollution Control Board.

4. All the appeals having been filed against the

orders of National Green Tribunal (NGT), it is

necessary to notice the details of various proceedings

before the NGT to appreciate the grievances raised in

the appeals. The Gauhati High Court on the basis of a

News item to the effect that on 06.07.2012, 30 coal

labourers were trapped inside a coal mine at

Nongalbibra in the District of South Garo Hill and 15

of them died inside the coal mine, registered PIL suo