K.M. Chinnappa: Mining Inside a National Park

In one line

A mine inside a National Park was not shut down. It was given an end date, a restoration plan, a deposit and a monitoring committee.

In exam wording: in K.M. Chinnappa v. Union of India (2002) 10 SCC 606 the Supreme Court dealt with iron ore mining inside the Kudremukh National Park, declared under section 35(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, under a lease that had expired on 25 July 1999; the Central Empowered Committee constituted under section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 recommended that the company wind up its operations within five years or on the exhaustion of the oxidised weathered secondary ore in the already broken up area, whichever was earlier, on conditions including an eco-restoration plan at the company's cost, a monetary compensation of twenty-five crore rupees at five crore a year for research, monitoring and strengthening the protection of the Park and other protected areas in Karnataka, and a monitoring committee; the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under section 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 had on 11 July 2001 recommended that mining be allowed up to the year 2005; and the Court accepted the period fixed by the Forest Advisory Committee, so that mining should be allowed till the end of 2005, subject to the conditions recommended on ecological and other aspects.

The facts

Kudremukh Iron Ore Company was mining inside the Kudremukh National Park in Karnataka, in the Western Ghats. The Court recorded that the forests in the area are among the eighteen internationally recognised hotspots for biodiversity conservation in the world.

The area had been declared a reserved area in 1960, and the notification under section 35(1) was issued in 1987. The lease had expired on 25 July 1999, and renewal was sought.

The application was brought by K.M. Chinnappa, describing himself as a trustee of Wildlife First. It grew out of an application by the amicus curiae in the Godavarman proceedings questioning orders that violated the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972.

The reliefs sought. Withdrawal of the temporary working permission and a stop to mining; a stop to the pollution of the Bhadra river by open cast mining; action for encroachment and destruction of forest in the Park; and a stop to a new slurry pipeline through the Park's forests.

The legal question the Court settled first

Whether renewal of a mining lease in a forest area requires prior approval under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980.

The Court held it does, following Ambica Quarry Works and Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, in which it had been observed that whether it is a case of first grant or of renewal following exercise of an option by the lessee, compliance with section 2 of the Conservation Act is necessary as a condition precedent.