The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Union government why it did not create District Mineral Foundation (DMF) in addition to special purpose vehicle (SPV), set up for reclamation and regeneration of the environment that suffered damage due to excessive mining in mineral-rich areas in Karnataka.
A three-judge bench presided over by Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked Additional Solicitor General N K Kaul, appearing for the Centre, why the government did not amend Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in the manner so as to incorporate the SPV ordered by the apex court on September 28, 2012.
The court had then directed for creation of the SPV utilising 10% of the total receipt of the sale of iron ores, while favouring resumption of mining operations in 'B' category mines in Ballari, Chitradurga and Tumkuru districts. The court was on Monday hearing a plea by the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI), argued by senior advocate C A Sundaram, for doing away with the SPV in view of the creation of the DMF after amendment to Section 9B of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, on March 26, 2015.
"You could have said DMF would be in addition to the SPV and said that Section 9B would no way dilute the courts order. Since, it is not there, you have left it for the court to decide," the bench, also comprising Justices Prafulla C Pant and A M Khanwilkar, told ASG Kaul.
Kaul, on his part, submitted that the under the PM Khanij Kshetra Kalyan Yojana, a portion of the iron ore extracted is to be earmarked for the development of the region. The DMF is not area-specific and its resources were much more modest than the SPV and were to be used for welfare of the people.
Karnatakas counsel, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, submitted that the DMF is a precautionary measure and it operates separately. Both the SPV and the DMF can co-exist separately as the DMF deals with consequences of legal mining. He defended the move to use the DMF for laying down railway lines saying those were considered the cheapest mode for transportation of iron ore.
"There was huge damage caused to Hampi, a Unesco site in Ballari, and Chitradurga, known for its forts. The funds can be utilised to repair the damage," he said. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Samaj Parivartan Samudaya, said the SPV was required for inter-general equity and sustainable development.
The court posted the matter for further consideration on October 7.
![]( "The court had then directed for creation of the SPV utilising 10% of the total receipt of the sale of iron ores, while favouring resumption of mining operations in 'B' category mines in Ballari, Chitradurga and Tumkuru districts. pti file photo")
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Union government why it did not create District Mineral Foundation (DMF) in addition to special purpose vehicle (SPV), set up for reclamation and regeneration of the environment that suffered damage due to excessive mining in mineral-rich areas in Karnataka.
A three-judge bench presided over by Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked Additional Solicitor General N K Kaul, appearing for the Centre, why the government did not amend Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in the manner so as to incorporate the SPV ordered by the apex court on September 28, 2012.
The court had then directed for creation of the SPV utilising 10% of the total receipt of the sale of iron ores, while favouring resumption of mining operations in 'B’ category mines in Ballari, Chitradurga and Tumkuru districts. The court was on Monday hearing a plea by the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI), argued by senior advocate C A Sundaram, for doing away with the SPV in view of the creation of the DMF after amendment to Section 9B of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, on March 26, 2015.
"You could have said DMF would be in addition to the SPV and said that Section 9B would no way dilute the court's order. Since, it is not there, you have left it for the court to decide,” the bench, also comprising Justices Prafulla C Pant and A M Khanwilkar, told ASG Kaul.
Kaul, on his part, submitted that the under the PM Khanij Kshetra Kalyan Yojana, a portion of the iron ore extracted is to be earmarked for the development of the region. The DMF is not area-specific and its resources were much more modest than the SPV and were to be used for welfare of the people.
Karnataka's counsel, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, submitted that the DMF is a precautionary measure and it operates separately. Both the SPV and the DMF can co-exist separately as the DMF deals with consequences of legal mining. He defended the move to use the DMF for laying down railway lines saying those were considered the cheapest mode for transportation of iron ore.
"There was huge damage caused to Hampi, a Unesco site in Ballari, and Chitradurga, known for its forts. The funds can be utilised to repair the damage,” he said. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Samaj Parivartan Samudaya, said the SPV was required for inter-general equity and sustainable development.
The court posted the matter for further consideration on October 7.
A three-judge bench presided over by Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked Additional Solicitor General N K Kaul, appearing for the Centre, why the government did not amend Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in the manner so as to incorporate the SPV ordered by the apex court on September 28, 2012.
The court had then directed for creation of the SPV utilising 10% of the total receipt of the sale of iron ores, while favouring resumption of mining operations in 'B' category mines in Ballari, Chitradurga and Tumkuru districts. The court was on Monday hearing a plea by the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI), argued by senior advocate C A Sundaram, for doing away with the SPV in view of the creation of the DMF after amendment to Section 9B of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, on March 26, 2015.
"You could have said DMF would be in addition to the SPV and said that Section 9B would no way dilute the courts order. Since, it is not there, you have left it for the court to decide," the bench, also comprising Justices Prafulla C Pant and A M Khanwilkar, told ASG Kaul.
Kaul, on his part, submitted that the under the PM Khanij Kshetra Kalyan Yojana, a portion of the iron ore extracted is to be earmarked for the development of the region. The DMF is not area-specific and its resources were much more modest than the SPV and were to be used for welfare of the people.
Karnatakas counsel, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, submitted that the DMF is a precautionary measure and it operates separately. Both the SPV and the DMF can co-exist separately as the DMF deals with consequences of legal mining. He defended the move to use the DMF for laying down railway lines saying those were considered the cheapest mode for transportation of iron ore.
"There was huge damage caused to Hampi, a Unesco site in Ballari, and Chitradurga, known for its forts. The funds can be utilised to repair the damage," he said. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Samaj Parivartan Samudaya, said the SPV was required for inter-general equity and sustainable development.
The court posted the matter for further consideration on October 7.
The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Union government why it did not create District Mineral Foundation (DMF) in addition to special purpose vehicle (SPV), set up for reclamation and regeneration of the environment that suffered damage due to excessive mining in mineral-rich areas in Karnataka.A three-judge bench presided over by Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked Additional Solicitor General N K Kaul, appearing for the Centre, why the government did not amend Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in the manner so as to incorporate the SPV ordered by the apex court on September 28, 2012.
The court had then directed for creation of the SPV utilising 10% of the total receipt of the sale of iron ores, while favouring resumption of mining operations in 'B’ category mines in Ballari, Chitradurga and Tumkuru districts. The court was on Monday hearing a plea by the Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (FIMI), argued by senior advocate C A Sundaram, for doing away with the SPV in view of the creation of the DMF after amendment to Section 9B of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, on March 26, 2015.
"You could have said DMF would be in addition to the SPV and said that Section 9B would no way dilute the court's order. Since, it is not there, you have left it for the court to decide,” the bench, also comprising Justices Prafulla C Pant and A M Khanwilkar, told ASG Kaul.
Kaul, on his part, submitted that the under the PM Khanij Kshetra Kalyan Yojana, a portion of the iron ore extracted is to be earmarked for the development of the region. The DMF is not area-specific and its resources were much more modest than the SPV and were to be used for welfare of the people.
Karnataka's counsel, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, submitted that the DMF is a precautionary measure and it operates separately. Both the SPV and the DMF can co-exist separately as the DMF deals with consequences of legal mining. He defended the move to use the DMF for laying down railway lines saying those were considered the cheapest mode for transportation of iron ore.
"There was huge damage caused to Hampi, a Unesco site in Ballari, and Chitradurga, known for its forts. The funds can be utilised to repair the damage,” he said. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Samaj Parivartan Samudaya, said the SPV was required for inter-general equity and sustainable development.
The court posted the matter for further consideration on October 7.