National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: ss.14, 15 and 16 – Jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal (NGT) – Orders by NGT imposing ban on mining – Whether orders passed by NGT were without jurisdiction being beyond the purview of ss.14, 15 and 16 of the NGT Act, 2010 – Held: Cognizance was taken by NGT when application O.A.73 of 2014 on 17.4.2014 was admitted and order was issued – There were clear allegation in the application that inspite of various remedial measures set out in the report of expert, no proper and effective remedial measures were taken by the concerned authorities of the State – The pleadings in the application clearly alleged environmental degradation due to illegal coal mining – It was further stated that inaction of authorities had 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 allegations made in the application were sufficient for NGT to exercise its jurisdiction as conferred by s.14 – Both the component as appearing in sub-section 1 of s.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 – NGT after adverting to O.A.No.73 of 2014 on 17.04.2014 had called for various reports from different committees including State Pollution Control Board – It was not a case of mere allegation 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 NGT by which environmental degradation of water, air and surface of the land was proved – Therefore, there was sufficient allegation regarding substantial questions relating to environment and violation of enactments in Schedule I – There was no substance in the appellant’s submission that NGT has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and pass orders – In cases pertaining to environmental matter, the State has to act as facilitator and not as obstructionist – The submission for the State that NGT exceeded its jurisdiction under ss.14 and 15 in entertaining O.A.No.73 of 2014 is rejected – Constitution of India – Art.48A – Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: s.19(1) – Under Or.26 r.10A CPC, a Court can appoint commission for scientific investigation – This power can very well be exercised by the NGT also – NGT while asking expert to give a report is not confined to the four corners of r.10A and its jurisdiction is not shackled by strict terms of Or.21 r.10A by virtue of s.19(1) of the NGT Act – r.24 of National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011 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 – There is no lack of jurisdiction in NGT in directing for appointment of a committee and to obtain a report from a Committee – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.26 r.10A – Commission/Committee – National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011 – r.24. Land Laws: Land tenure system – Nature of land tenure in the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – In the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either privately or community owned in which State does not claim any right – The, private owners of the land as well as community owners have both the surface right as well as sub-soil right – Thus, the tribals owned the land and also owned the minerals – Constitution of India – Art.244, sub-clause (2) – Mines and Minerals. Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: Applicability of the provisions of Act of 1957 in Tribal areas within the State of Meghalaya, included in Schedule VI of the Constitution – Schedule VI of the Constitution is a provision for Administration of Tribal areas in the State of Meghalaya – There is nothing in Schedule VI which may indicate about the inapplicability of Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – In the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India for the year ended 31st March, 2013 also it is clearly stated that Act, 1957 is fully applicable for regulation of mines and regulation of minerals in the State of Meghalaya – Moreover, there was no notification issued by the President under Para 12A(b) of Schedule VI which empowers the President, with respect to any Act of Parliament, by notification, to direct that it shall not apply to an autonomous district or an autonomous region in the State of Meghalaya, or shall apply to such district or region or any part thereof subject to such exceptions or modifications as he may specify in the notification – Thus, there is nothing in Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which may indicate about the inapplicability of Act, 1957 with regard to the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – Constitution of India – Schedule VI, Para 12A sub-clause (b) – Mines Act, 1952. Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: Legislative competence of State of Meghalaya to frame Mining Policy – Directions of NGT to the State of Meghalaya to frame policy – Propriety of – Held: Meghalaya Mines and Minerals Policy, 2012 and Draft Guidelines of coal mining activities in the State framed by Mining and Geology Department of the Government – Policy of 2012 contemplated regulatory regime for mining lease by the State – The Guidelines mentioned about the unregulated and unscientific mining being carried out in the State of Meghalaya – There can be no dispute to the preposition that in view of MMDR Act, 1957, the legislative competence of State of Meghalaya under Entry 23 List II stood denuded – However, under MMDR Act, 1957 as well as the MC Rules, 1960, several statutory obligations/jurisdictions have been conferred on the State of Meghalaya – When under a Parliamentary enactment, State has been given some statutory obligations, there is no lack of jurisdiction in the State to frame policy to give effect to or implement the jurisdictions conferred on the State by Parliamentary enactments – It is true that Mining Policy to be framed by the State has to confine to the jurisdiction conferred on it as per the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder – Several other aspects relating to mining like, rehabilitation reclamation and restoration have to be effectively implemented by the State for which also, it may be required to frame a policy – Policy of 2012 was already framed by the State of Meghalaya, even before directions were issued by the NGT – In pursuance of NGT directions, it was draft guidelines of 2015, which were prepared by State of Meghalaya – Thus, direction of NGT to declare Mining Policy by the State of Meghalaya cannot be said to be without jurisdiction – However, the State in its Mining Policy can only include those areas where it has jurisdiction under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder – Constitution of India – Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: s.4(1) – Whether the statute requires obtaining lease for winning the minerals in so far as mining of coal from privately owned land/ community owned land are concerned – Held: For carrying out mining operations in privately owned land in hills districts of Meghalaya, obtaining a mining lease is a statutory requirement under the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules, 1960 – Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: Whether the power to allot land for mining purposes is vested in Autonomous District Councils – Held: The District Council does not have any power to make any law with regard to grant of mining lease – The mining leases for winning the major minerals has to be granted in accordance with 1957 Act and Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Khasi Hills District (Trading by Non Tribals) Regulation, 1954 – United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and Control of Forest) Rules, 1960 – Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Trading by Non Tribals) Rules, 1959,. Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: Whether the order of NGT dated 17.04.2014 directing for complete ban on mining is unsustainable – Held: The use of natural resources plays major role in carrying out development – A fine balance has to be maintained in utilisation of natural resources and its conservation and preservation – By order of NGT dated 17.04.2014, the Rat hole mining/illegal mining was prohibited throughout the State of Meghalaya – In OA No.73 of 2014 in which said order was passed, sufficient materials were on record including experts report which proved that illegal coal mining in the State of Meghalaya was degrading the environment – NGT after considering all pleas and materials affirmed order dated 17.04.2014 and refused to withdraw the ban – No error in the order of NGT reaffirming its ban order. Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: Whether the complete ban on mining of coal in the State of Meghalaya as directed by NGT deserved to be vacated/modified in the interest of State and Tribals – Held: Tribals are the owners of the land who carry on mining of coal in their land by which they earn their substantial livelihood – In event mining operations are undertaken by the tribals or other owners of hills districts of Meghalaya in accordance with mining lease obtained from the State of Meghalaya as per 1957 Act and Rules, 1960, the ban order dated 17.04.2014 of NGT shall not come in its way of carrying mining operations – The ban order is for the illegal coal mining which was rampant in the State of Meghalaya and the ban order cannot be extended to valid and legal mining as per 1957 Act and 1960 Rules – Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter V – Procedure for grant of mining lease and authority/person, who is competent to grant such lease – Held: As per the statutory provisions contained in Rules, 1960, especially Chapter V, a mining lease for minerals, which belongs to a private owner or a community owner, it is not the State Government, which is entitled to receive any application or grant any mining lease, but it is the private owner or community owner, who is entitled to grant a lease for mining minerals owned by them. Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter IV and Chapter V – Distinction between – Chapter IV deals with grant of mining leases in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government and Chapter V deals with procedure for obtaining a prospecting licence or mining lease in respect of land in which the minerals vest in a person other than the Government – Procedure and manner of applying for mining lease and grant of lease as contained in Chapter IV is not made applicable to the procedure as given in Chapter V except that by virtue of r.45(i) certain conditions of mining lease as contained in r.27 under Chapter IV are made applicable for mining lease under Chapter V. Mineral Concession Rules, 1960: Chapter V – Whether the State of Meghalaya has any statutory control over the mining of coal from privately owned/community owned land in Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – Held: State of Meghalaya has jurisdiction and power to ensure that no mining of coal should take place except when a mining lease is granted under the Rules, 1960 – The statutory scheme delineated by s.13(2)(f) and the Rules, 1960 clearly contemplate grant of mining lease, with regard to both the categories of land, i.e., land in which minerals vest in the Government, and the land in which minerals vest in a person other than the Government – Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957 – s.13(2)(f). Mines and Minerals: Jurisdiction of NGT – Constitution of committee – Whether NGT had any jurisdiction to constitute committees to submit reports, to implement the orders of NGT, to monitor storage/transportation; of minerals and to prepare action plan for restoration of environment and whether the NGT committed error in directing for constitution of fund, namely, Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund – Held: There is no lack of jurisdiction in the NGT to direct for appointment of committee or to obtain a report from a committee – A Fund has been constituted by NGT, namely, “Meghalaya Environment Protection and Restoration Fund” – NGT could have passed any order or direction to secure ends of justice which power especially conferred by Rule 24 – Direction to constitute Fund is thus also saved under such power – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Mines and Minerals: Judicial powers of NGT – Whether NGT by constituting Committees has delegated essential judicial powers to the Committees – Held: The various instances where the NGT directed for report or investigation and submission of report by committees were with the object of ensuring the implementation of the orders passed by it and to decide the environmental issues raised before it – In no manner, constitution of committee can be said to be delegation of essential judicial powers of the NGT to the committee – The Katakey committee was constituted by NGT on 31.08.2018 – The constitution of the committee and its functions entrusted were with the object to implement the orders passed by NGT – For the restoration of environment, NGT by its order dated 31.08.2018 has directed the committee to submit its action plan and reports by e-mail – NGT, thus, had kept complete control on all steps which were required to be taken by the committee and issued directions from time to time – Thus, the submission that the essential judicial powers of the NGT had been delegated to the committee is not tenable – The matter being pending before NGT of acts of the committee are under direct control of NGT and if the committee oversteps in any direction the same can very well be corrected by NGT on the matter being brought before it – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Mines and Minerals: Whether constitution of the committee encroaches the constitutional scheme of the Tribal areas under Art.244(2) and Art.275(1) and Schedule VI of the Constitution – Para 3 of the Schedule VI enumerates the powers of the District Council and Regional Council to make laws – The powers of the District and Regional Councils are enumerated under Para 3 – In the directions of NGT to constitute committee for transportation of extracted minerals or for preparing time bound action to deal with the restoration of environment and to ensure its implementation, there is no interference in the powers of the District or Regional Councils – Action plan for restoration of environment is consequence of NGT finding out that an unregulated coal mining has damaged environment and has caused the pollution including water pollution – It is not case of the appellant that District and Regional Councils have framed any law for restoration of environment which is being breached by the committee or its acts – The District and Regional Councils are free to exercise all their powers and the committee constituted by NGT is only concerned with the Environmental degradation and illegal coal mining – The committees’ report or direction of NGT in no manner encroaches upon the administration of Tribal areas by the District and Regional Councils – Constitution of India – Arts.244(2), 275(1). Mines and Minerals: Whether direction to deposit Rs.100/- crores by the State of Meghalaya by order dated 04.01.2019 of NGT is sustainable – NGT by its order dated 04.01.2019 had directed the State of Meghalaya to deposit an amount of Rs.100 Crores with the Central Pollution Control Board, which was to be spent for restoration of environment – The State of Meghalaya aggrieved by this direction filed appeal – Held: The amount, which has been directed by NGT to be deposited by State of Meghalaya is neither a penalty nor a fine imposed on the State – The amount has been directed to be deposited for carrying out steps regarding restoration of environment – The said amount cannot be said to be amount of damages to be paid by the State – State of Meghalaya has very limited source of revenue and putting an extra burden on the State of Meghalaya to make payment of Rs.100 Crores from its own financial resources and budgetary amount may cause great hardship to the State of Meghalaya – In the ends of justice, the direction of NGT dated 04.01.2019 is modified to the extent that State is permitted to transfer an amount of Rs.100 Crores from the amount lying in the MEPRF to the Central Pollution Control Board – The Central Pollution Control Board shall utilise the amount of Rs.100 Crores only for restoration of the environment. Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957: ss.4(1), 21 – Coal – Vesting in Government – Whether NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016 that after 15.05.2016, all remaining coal shall vest in the State of Meghalaya is sustainable – By order dated 31.03.2016, NGT had permitted transportation of coal till 15.5.2016 under terms and conditions as enumerated therein and further contemplated that no coal in any form whatsoever shall be permitted to be transported after 15.05.2016 on which date the entire remaining coal shall vest in the State Government and shall be disposed of in accordance with law – Propriety of NGT’s order dated 31.03.2016 – Held: Coal mining was illegally going on in the Hills District of State of Meghalaya without there being any mining lease – The entire mining was, thus, is clear in contravention of s.4(1) of Act, 1957 which attracted penalties under s.21 – The present is not a case where any kind of penalty was imposed on the miners except that the amount of royalty as payable on mining of coal was collected by the State as penalty – State Government has power under s.21(5). to recover from such person the minerals so raised, or, where such material has already been disposed of, the price thereof, and may also recover from such person, rent, royalty or tax, as the case may be, but it is for State Government to exercise its power under s.21(5) by way of penalty – The NGT did not give any reason as to how coal shall automatically vest in the State – The right of recovery of mineral as contemplated under s.21(5) would not amount to say that proprietary right of owner of the minerals is lost rather State under s.21(5) exercises its power to recover the mineral which has been raised without any lawful authority – Thus, coal extracted and lying in open after 15.05.2016 was not automatically vested in the State and the owner of the coal or the person who has mined the coal shall have the proprietary right in the mineral which shall not be lost. Mines and Minerals: Coal – Whether assessed and unassessed coal which has already been extracted and lying in different Districts of Meghalaya be permitted to be transported – Mechanism to be adopted for disposal of such coal – Held: Coal being major mineral and useful for different industries and projects, appropriate disposal of extracted coal is of a paramount importance – Entire extracted coal lying at various places is directed to be taken over by Coal India Ltd, a Government of India unit, who may dispose of the same as per its normal method of disposal – For all extracted coal lying at different places, it is the State, which is the receiver-cum-custodian of the coal – The State having carried out the assessment of the coal lying in the said four districts including the details of the quantities and the details of owners being available with it, it may ensure that the entire coal are handed over to the Coal India Ltd., as per the mode and manner to be formulated by Katakey Committee, in consultation with officers of the Coal India Ltd. and State of Meghalaya – Commissioner and Secretary of the State in the Department of Mining and Geology alongwith the officers of Coal India Ltd. are directed to deliberate with the Katakey committee to finalise a comprehensive plan for transportation and handing over of the coal to Coal India Ltd. for disposal/auction as per rules of Coal India Ltd. – It is for the Coal India Ltd. to decide as to venue, where they shall receive the coal and finalise the process of disposal and auction of the coal – It shall be the duty of the State of Meghalaya and its officers especially Deputy Commissioner of the area concerned to enter details of quantity of the coal, name of the owner and place from where it is collected – State of Meghalaya shall be entitled to royalty and payment towards MERP Fund as well as taxes out of the price of the coal – The Coal India Ltd. after taking its expenses for transportation with 10% of price of the coal shall remit the entire amount to the State and State after deducting the royalty and payment to the MERP Fund and taxes would pay back the balance of the amount to the owner – The coal, which has been seized by the State in illegal transportation or illegal mining for which different cases have been registered by the State shall be dealt by the State in accordance with s.21 of the Act, 1957 and on being satisfied, the State can take a decision to recover the entire quantity of coal so illegally raised without lawful authority and the said cases has to be separately dealt with in accordance with law – All I.A.s filed by different applicants seeking order of transportation of the different quantities disposed of – The Katakey committee in consultation with State of Meghalaya and officers of Coal India Ltd. would finalise appropriate mode and manner to affect the transport and disposal of the coal in the above manner. Mines Act, 1952: Mines Act, 1952 contains various provisions regarding inspection of mining operation and management of mines – The provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 are mandatory to be followed before working a mine – The regulations namely Coal Mines Regulations, 2017 also contains several regulatory provisions which need to be followed while working a mine by a mining lease holder – The enforcement of Mines Act, 1952 and the Regulations, 2017 have to be ensured by the State in the public interest. Mines and Minerals: Coal mining in the Hills Districts of the State of Meghalaya – As per statutory regime brought in force by notification dated 15.01.2016 issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, environmental clearance is required for a project of coal for mining of any extent of area – While implementing statutory regime for carrying mining operations in the Hills Districts of the State of Meghalaya, the State of Meghalaya has to ensure compliance of not only MMDR Act, 1957 but Mines Act, 1952 as well as Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Judicial Appreciation: Committee – Work appreciated – The Katakey committee and its various members and participants have done a commendable job in studying and examining various aspects of environment in the State of Meghalaya and several valuable suggestions have been given by the committee, which are also being implemented to mitigate the suffering of the citizens consequent to the illegal coal mined.