விவி மினரல் நிறுவனத்திற்கு எதிரான வழக்கில் உச்சநீதிமன்றம் இடைக்கால தடை

கடந்த பிப்ரவரி மாதம் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தில் ஒரு பரபரப்பு தீர்ப்பு தாது மணல் சம்பந்தமாக வழங்கப் பட்டது. அதாவது இருக்கின்ற தாதுமணல் அனைத்தையும் அரசிடம் ஒப்படைக்க வேண்டும் மற்றும் பல ஆயிரம் கோடி ரூபாய் ராயல்டி மற்றும் தொகை செலுத்த வேண்டும். சிபிஐ வழக்கு பதிவு செய்து விசாரிக்க வேண்டும் உட்பட ஏராளமான உத்தரவுகளில் அதில் பிறப்பிக்கப் பட்டது. இதனை எதிர்த்து எங்கள் விவி மினரல் நிறுவனம் சார்பில் உச்சநீதிமன்றத்தில் சிறப்பு அனுமதி மனு தாக்கல் செய்யப் பட்டது. அதில் நாங்கள் முறைப்படி தேவையான அனைத்து அனுமதிகளையும் பெற்றுள்ளோம். அரசுக்கு உரிய ராயல்டி செலுத்தியே கனிமங்களை போக்குவரத்து செய்துள்ளோம். எங்களிடம் சுற்றுச்சூழல் அனுமதி மற்றும் சுரங்க திட்ட அனுமதி போன்ற இந்திய அரசிடம் பெற வேண்டிய அனுமதிகளும் உள்ளன. நாங்கள் ஒவ்வொரு கனிமத்தையும் அரசுக்கு ராயல்டி செலுத்தி அரசின் இயக்க அனுமதி சீட்டோடே எடுத்து வந்துள்ளோம். இதனை எங்கள் எழுத்துபூர்வ வாதுரையில் ஆவணங்களுடன் சமர்பித்துள்ளோம். (எழுத்துபூர்வ வாதுரை https://vetri3337.blogspot.com/2025/04/blog-post.html- ல் உள்ளது)

இந்த விபரங்களை நீதிமன்றத்தில் எடுத்துரைக்கவும் செய்தோம். உயர்நீதிமன்ற உத்தரவு பத்தி 75 முதல் 100-ல் இதனை காணலாம்.

VII. Contentions of the Respondents:

Key Points of Contentions by the 8^th and 22^nd Respondents:

75.        The 22^nd Respondent claims that his competitors out of rivalry have instituted the present PIL. The 8^th Respondent claims that they have a valid mining lease from the State Government with the previous approval of the Central Government as well as Atomic Energy Department. The 8^th Respondent stated that they have a valid mining plan duly approved by Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration (AMD) and the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) which had approved the scheme of mining also. It was also stated that they have a valid Environmental Clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF&CC) for all its mining leases and that the production also is within the limit of EC as well as approved mining/scheme of mining and they also stated that they have a valid consent under Air Act and Water Act.

76.        It was contended that the Amicus Curiae did not highlight any violations of the India Rare Earths Limited (IREL), but instead pointed out imaginary violations against the 8^th Respondent’s mining lease. The 8^th Respondent further leveled allegations of serious mining violations against IREL. It was further contented that the Amicus Curiae did not apply the reverse calculation method for the IREL and that he did not prepare chart citing violations by IREL.

77.        It was contented that the Amicus failed to act impartially and that though Amicus discussed about the Bedi report in his volume of charts, Amicus did not point out that Bedi committee did not inspect Trichy and Madurai Districts.

78.        It was further contended that principles of Natural Justice was violated only for the 8^th Respondent. Inspections of leases belonging to the 24^th, 25^th and 8^th Respondents were conducted based on directions of the High Court. However Natural Justice Principles were violated only with respect to the 8^th Respondent. Further, the 8^th Respondent alleges that the Amicus failed to point out the illegalities and violations committed by the

24^th and 25^th Respondents. The 8^th Respondent further contends that the Amicus did not collect documents from official government agencies and that he did not rely on official data.

79.        The 22^nd Respondent goes on to level allegations against Mr.D.Dhaya Devadas that he had engaged Retired officials to make complaint against the 8^th Respondent. The 8^th Respondent further claims that totally 40 allegations were leveled against the company and that all allegations were thoroughly enquired and rejected by the State Government and reported to the Government of India vide its Principal Secretary letter

No.7810/MMD2/2011-1 dated 23.07.2013. The 8^th Respondent claims that IREL colluded with Mr.D.Dhaya Devadas.

80.        It was submitted that the Customs Department did not point out any irregularities against the 8^th Respondent, however it is alleged by the latter that the 24^th and 25^th Respondents export is more than the permit obtained quantity.

81.        The 8^th Respondent contended that the Amicus Curiae method of calculation of royalty is wrong. This was substantiated by stating that all the quantity transported by the 8^th Respondent is below the quantity permitted by MoEF and permitted by mining plan/scheme of mining and that the variation is solely due to replenishable deposits. Further, it was submitted that all the quantities were transported with valid permits.

82.        Further, it was submitted that the 8^th Respondent is permitted to produce other minerals from the existing tailings accumulated vide competent authority 2^nd Respondent letters dated 05.05.2000 and

05.06.2000, without fresh mining lease and also that the 1^st Respondent had confirmed the same, vide letter dated 16.08.2000. Hence, based on the above said approval letters issued by competent authorities, the 6^th and 7^th Respondents permitted the 8^th Respondents to produce minerals from existing accumulated tailings available with 8^th Respondent.

83. It was contented that the case of Common Cause vs. Union of

India and Others^[1], is not applicable to the 8^th Respondent. The 8^th Respondent relied on paragraph 129 of the judgment, as follows:

“129. The simple reason for not accepting this interpretation is that Rule 2(ii-a) of the MCR was inserted by a Notification dated 26-7-2012 while we are concerned with an earlier period. That apart, as mentioned above, the holder of a mining lease is required to adhere to the terms of the mining scheme, the mining plan and the mining lease as well as the statutes such as the EPA, the FCA, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. If any mining operation is conducted in violation of any of these requirements, then that mining operation is illegal or unlawful. Any extraction of a mineral through an illegal or unlawful mining operation would become illegally or unlawfully extracted mineral.”

On relying in this paragraph, the 8^th Respondent averred that they have necessary approvals and clearances as under the Act and Rules.

84.        It was further contended that the 8^th Respondent has not engaged in illegal mining. And that with respect to Bedi Committee, the 8^th Respondent claims it to be not statutorily valid. It was further averred that there is no excess stock with respect to 8^th Respondent as per Sahoo Committee report.

85.        It was averred by the 8^th Respondent that with respect to monazite, there are no possibilities for export of monazite as there are no countries where thorium is used for any purpose. And that the allegation of export of monazite by M/s.V.V. Mineral is wrong.

86.        It was also submitted that the reverse calculation method for royalty adopted by Amicus is wrong. It was submitted that this calculation is not based on physical verification or inspection or seizure by competent empowered officials.

87.        The 8^th Respondent's total sales are 57,71,688 MT. 15,000 divided by 38,77,391 = 0.0038685 x 57,71,688 = 22327.77 MT of Monazite should be available. Whereas the 8^th respondent having the following quantity of Monazite.

 

Actual Stock 38,77,391 M.Ton	Content of Monazite 15,000 M.Ton
Already export local sales quantity 57,71,688 M.Ton	23,408 M.Ton instead of 22327 M.Ton

 

This will establish that the reverse calculations are wrong according to the analysis report documents of Amicus.

88.        The excess quantity is the quantity collected from the already sold minerals prior to 2000. So, the reverse calculation method adopted by Amicus is defeated by his own analysis documents produced from AMD.

89.        Further contentions of the 8^th Respondent are that as per Section 5(2)(b) of MMDR Act, the State Government, cannot grant the mining lease without the approved mining plans. Also as per Rule 22(5) of MCR, 1960 the mining plan should contain the tentative scheme of mining - That means the quantity mentioned in the mining plan is only tentative. The quantity and annual program are only tentative and the replenishable quantity can be collected by the lessee if it is deposited within the lease hold area as already decided by the Court in W.A.No.69 of 1998 and W.P.No.5386 of 1997. As per Rule 22(6) of MCR, 1960 the mining plan once approved will be valid for the entire lease period and that 8th Respondent has the valid mining plans for all its mines. As per Rule 9(2) of Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 (MCDR, 1988), the Controller General or the authorized officer may require the holder of a mining lease to make such modification in the mining plan or impose such conditions as he may be consider necessary by an order in writing, if such modification or imposition of conditions are considered necessary. Accordingly, 8^th Respondent has obtained modified mining plan also for certain lease areas.

90.        It was averred that the Government of India, IBM issued separatemanual for preparation and approval of mining plans after prior inspection. So without verification no mining plan will be approved and hence the Amicus allegation about mining plan has no basis.

91.        The 8^th Respondent averred that none of the Act and Rules for payment of royalty or mining operation has been violated by the 8th respondent. It was submitted that the entire 3rd report of the Amicus is without any statutory violation and that this report regarding royalty and his enclosures 15A and 15B has no legal value.

92.        Regarding Monazite the 8^th Respondent contends that the percentage of occurrence of monazite in BSMs is a natural phenomenon and claims that they have requisite handling license and that they are permitted to store the monazite tailings. Based on the aforementioned grounds the 8th and 22nd respondent sought for dismissal of this PIL.

Key Contentions of 16^th, 17^th, 18^th, and 19^th Respondents:

93.        It was mainly submitted that Monazite is a radioactive material

and cannot be clandestinely smuggled across National/International borders. Every atomic mineral have traces of radioactive mineral, which cannot be separated and that National and International regulators have fixed permissible threshold. It was submitted that checkpoints at Airports and Harbours are installed with radioactive detectable scanners as per International guidelines stipulated by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There is also clear National and International mechanism to monitor the movement of radioactive materials including monazite across borders.

94.        With regard to allegations of excess mining it was averred that in BSM, the presence of percentage of minerals are not certain. Sometimes due to tidal action and wind action, the deposits will be more and some time there won't be even any deposit. So when excess minerals are got from BSM, it is declared before the Lessor. The lessor can either confiscate the excess minerals and say it is in excess of the mining plan and hence it belongs to the State or royalty can be collected and in the present case the lessor has chosen the latter and the royalty collected was audited and duly shared between the Centre and the State. Therefore question of evasion does not arise.

95.        It was submitted that every form of mineral which was exported have suffered royalty and properly declared. There must be a mismatch in the interpretation of quantum of royalty to be collected whether on the ad valorem price of Orissa or Tamil Nadu is but a technicality and not evasion.

96.        It was submitted that the respondent company was granted lease by order dated 01.03.2004 for a period of 30 years for doing Beach Sand Mining and pursuant to the mining lease the hundreds of crores of Rupees was invested and the mining plan was set up. Further, more than 10,000 direct and indirect employments were created due to the trade. Further, huge amounts of royalty was paid and foreign exchange revenue worth hundreds of crores was generated by exporting beach sand minerals. Surprisingly the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.Ms.No.318 dated 25.11.2021 terminated the lease of this respondent prematurely stating that Government of India has amended the Atomic Mineral Concession Rules, 2016.

97.        It was averred that the amendment is nothing but a clear case of colorable legislation in order to favour Government companies, who are all competitors to the petitioner company. There is no reasonable classification and object sought to be achieved by the specific amendment. Further there is no rational nexus. The beach sand minerals may have minor radioactivity which cannot be separated and that all are handled by both Government and private companies.

98.        It was submitted that the ratio laid down in Common cause judgment (Supra) which deals about static miserable reserve does not apply to the case of BSMs. It was further submitted that the MMDR Act is not a control Act but a development oriented Act.

99.        It was averred that the repeated criticism of mining of BSM would cause environmental issue is a gross generalization without any regard to factual aspects. BSM are unique and they are the only mineral which are replenishable in nature. The replenishment was also recognised by the learned Amicus in his report. The Nagar Committee assigned by Department of Atomic Energy also has recognized fact of replenishment.

100.     With regard to royalty it was contented that whatever amount calculated in whatever means either in the form of royalty towards ROM has to be treated as advance royalty. Therefore the entire quantities of mineral exported by the respondents are royalty stuffed. And excess royalty amount collected in the Department of Geology and Mining is still with the

Government.

 

 மேற்கண்ட எங்களது வாதுரைக்கும் ஆதாரங்களுக்கும் எந்த பிரதிவாதியும் மறுத்து ஆதாரம் சமர்பிக்கவில்லை என்பன போன்ற அனைத்து உண்மைகளும் மேண்மை தங்கிய உச்சநீதிமன்றத்தின் முன்பு எடுத்து வைக்கப் பட்டது. அவற்றை பரிசீலித்த மேண்மை தங்கிய உச்சநீதிமன்றம் எங்கள் தரப்பு ஆவணங்களை பரிசீலித்து உயர்நீதிமன்றத்தின் உத்தரவிற்கு இடைக்கால தடை விதித்து தற்போது உள்ள நிலையே தொடர வேண்டும் என ஆணை பிறப்பித்து உள்ளது என்ற விபரத்தை இதன் மூலம் தெரிவித்துக் கொள்கிறோம்.