M/S SLR METALIKS LTD vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT M.S.BUILDING, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001

FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN

18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

3 4TH FLOOR, A-WING SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-110 001 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2; SRIMATI.ANUPAMA HEGDE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016 [KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016] [ANNEXURE-A] IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AB INITIO.

In Writ Petition No.44100 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.JSW STEELS LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS JINDAL VIJAYNAGAR STEEL LTD.,) REGD. OFFICE AT 5A, Dr.G.DESHMUKH MARG MUMBAI-400 026

BRANCH OFFICE AT: 6TH FLOOR, EAST WING RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 042

WORK OFFICE AT: VIJAYANAGAR WORKS P.O.VIDYANAGAR, TORANGALLU BELLARY-583 275

4 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Mr.MANI C. MANUEL GENERAL MANAGER ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRIMATI.S.R.ANURADHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3;

5 SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE / QUASH THE ACT NO.23 OF 2016 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE EXTRA-ORDINARY ON 25.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A THE KARNATAKA FOREST AMENDMENT ACT 2016 TO AMEND THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963 AS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND QUASH THE DEMAND OF FDF RAISED BY THE MONITORING COMMITTEE IN ITS ACCEPTANCE LETTER VIDE ANNEXURE-B DTD.8.8.2016 ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.47228 OF 2016:

BETWEEN:

PRAKASH SPONGE IRON & POWER PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.32 7TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK BANGALORE-560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.R.PRAVEEN CHANDRA ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

6 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT 23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.42980 of 2016

BETWEEN:

VEDANTA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SESA STERLITE LIMITED & SESA GOA LIMITED) REGD. OFFICE AT P.O.BOX.125 SESAGHOR, 20, EDC COMPLEX PATTO, PANJIM, GOA-403 001 REP. BY ITS HEAD-FINANCE IRON ORE, KARNATAKA SRI.ANAND PRAKASH DUBEY ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

8 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560 003 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT 23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.42981 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

SRI.R.PRAVEEN CHANDRA S/O LATE SRI E RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O No.59, 12TH MAIN (OLD 24TH MAIN) SRINAGAR, BANASHANKARI I STAGE I BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 050 ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT 23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.43924 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE & POST KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT KARNATAKA-583 234 REPRESENTED BY ITS

10 SENIOR MANAGER (FINANCE) M.K.JAGADEESH KUMAR ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.MOHAMMED RIZWAN AHAMED, ADVOCATE) AND:

BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KHANIJA BHAVAN

RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016 (ACT 23/2016) PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF KARNATAKA PUBLISHED IN THE EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE NOTIFICATION

11 DATED 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND DISCRIMINATORY.

In Writ Petition No.44104 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.V.S.LAD & SONS (A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM) ‘PRASHANTI NIVAS’, KRISHNANAGAR SANDUR-583 119 BELLARY DISTRICT REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER Dr.EKNATH V. LAD. ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

12 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560 003 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.44105 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.HOTHUR TRADERS (A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM) "HOTHUR GRAND", No.771 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560 008 REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI.MOHAMMED IQBAL ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

13 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.44106 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.GOGGA GURUSANTHIAH & BROS. (A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM) P.B.No.4, NEHRU CO-OPERATIVE COLONY HOSPET-583 203, BELLARY DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.GOGGA CHANNABASAVARAJ ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)

14 AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

15 In Writ Petition No.44729 OF 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.LAKSHMINARAYANA MINING COMPANY (A REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM) OLD No.33, NEW No.100 SANNIDHI ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.D.N.GOPALAKRISHNA ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE) AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.44993 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

GERDAU STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED No.304/305, WORLD TRADE CENTRE No.6/1, Dr.RAJKUMAR ROAD MALLESWARAM (WEST) BANGALORE-560 055 REP. BY IT’S GENERAL MANAGER IRON ORE & SOLID FUEL DEPARTMENT SRI.M.C.HARISH ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.MOHAMMED RIZWAN AHAMED, ADVOCATE)

AND:

17 3. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE

BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KHANIJA BHAVAN

RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE “THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016” (ACT 23/2016) PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF KARNATAKA PUBLISHED IN THE EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND DISCRIMINATORY.

In Writ Petition No.46466 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY (A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM) “ZEENATH HOUSE”, COWL BAZAAR BELLARY-583 102 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER Mr.SYED AHMED ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)

18 AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.49495 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.SLR METALIKS LTD., SY.No.632, NARAYANDEVARAKERE

19 LOKAPPANAHOLA, NEAR MARIYAMMANAHALLI HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI TALUK BELLARY-583 222 REPRESENTED BY ITS CAO COL O.P.NEHRA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O.SRI.RAN SINGH ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN

18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM

BANGALORE-560 003

BELLARY CIRCLE

BELLARY-583 101

20 “KHANIJA BHAVAN”, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT THAT THE KARNATAKA FORESTS AMENDEMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23 OF 2016 DTD:27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.49694 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.PADMAVATHI FERROUS LTD., UNIT AT CHIKANTAPUR, TORANAGALLU BELLARY DISTRICT-583 275 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MAN MOHAN GOEL CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRIMATI.S.R.ANURADHA, ADVOCATE) AND:

21 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE / QUASH THE ACT NO.23 OF 2016 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY ON 25.07.2016; THE KARNATAKA FOREST AMENDMENT ACT 2016 TO AMEND THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963 AS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.51110 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.ELECTROTHERM (INDIA) LTD., A-1, SKYLARK APARTMENTS

22 SATELLITE ROAD, SATELLITE AHMEDABAD-380 015 REPRESENTED BY SALES MANAGER Mr.MUKESH VOHRA ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:

OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN

18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM

BANGALORE-560 003

BELLARY CIRCLE

BELLARY-583 101

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,

23 ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT THAT THE KARNATAKA FORESTS AMENDEMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23 OF 2016 DTD:27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL NULL AND VOID ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.51350 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.STAR MINERALS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR, “ANUGRAHA” PLOT No.5, KALYAAN NAGAR CHITWADGI, HOSPET-583 211 REPRESENTED BY SMT.A.SAVITHRI ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.MANU KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND:

24 3. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE 4TH FLOOR, A-WING SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI–110 001 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2; SRIMATI.ANUPAMA HEGDE, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 (KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016) (ANNEXURE-A) IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AB INITIO.

In Writ Petition No.52678 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.SRI.SHIV SHAKTI STEEL & ALLOYS REGD. OFF AT: 21-2-636/1 URDUGALLI, PATHERGATTI HYDERABAD-573 061 REP. BY ITS PARTNER KRISHNA KUMAR ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

25 DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.53173 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VISVESVARAYA IRON & STEEL PLANT BHADRAVATHI-577 301 INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT

26 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ISPAT BHAVAN, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110 003 REPRESENTED BY SHRI.H.N.VENKATESH S/O.H.D.NAGAPPA GOWDA HINDU, AGED 57 YEARS RESIDENT OF BHADRAVATHI ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (LAW) & THE GPA HOLDER

...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.SACHINDRA KARANTH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA

VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001

FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

BHADRAVATHI CIRCLE

BHADRAVATHI-577 301 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT 2016, ACT 23 OF 2016

27 [ANNEXURE-A] AND THE FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT 2015, ACT 41/2015 [ANNEXURE-G] ARE ILLEGAL AND ULTRAVIRES ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.53986 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.REACTIVE METALS OF INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED REGD. OFF AT: ROOM No.612, 6TH FLOOR TARAMANDAL COMPLEX, SAIFABAD HYDERABAD-500 004 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR ANAND KUMAR KEDIA ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND

28 SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.53987 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.JEEVAKA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED REGD. OFF AT:15-9-360 MAHABOOB GUNJ, HYDERABAD-500 012 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR ABHISHEK AGARWAL ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

29 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, “ARANYA BHAVAN” 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003 …RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.55478 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 (GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA UNDERTAKING) HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TTMC BUILDING, ‘A’ BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR BMTC, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (MKT) Mr.G.KUMARASWAMY ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.H.N.NARENDRA DEV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

30 HAVING OFFICE AT VIDHANA SOUDHA Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

(CONSTITUTED BY THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) HAVING OFFICE AT DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY No.49, KHANIJA BHAVAN 5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRMAN … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 AT ANNEXURE-A

31 AS BEING ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AND ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.858 of 2017:

BETWEEN:

M/s.JSW STEELS LIMITED SALEM WORKS (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS SOUTHERN IRON AND STEELS COMPANY LTD.,)

REGD. OFFICE AT 5A, Dr.G.DESHMUKH MARG MUMBAI-400 026

BRANCH OFFICE AT: 6TH FLOOR, EAST WING RAHEJA TOWERS, M.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 042

UNITS AT: POTTANERI, MECHERI, SALEM TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Mr.P.BOOPALAN VICE PRESIDENT (F & A) ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRIMATI.S.R.ANURADHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE / QUASH THE ACT NO.23 OF 2016 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY ON 27.7.2016 ANNEXURE-A THE KARNATAKA FOREST AMENDMENT ACT 2016 TO AMEND THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963 AS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.13744 of 2017:

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA IRON & STEEL MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION REGISTERED OFFICE: VIJAYA BANK BUILDING VIJAY VITTAL NAGAR, TORANGALLU SANDUR TALUK, DISTRICT-BELLARY REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Mr.MANI MANUEL ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

34 5. THE MONITORING COMMITTEE BY ITS CHAIRMAN-DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, “KHANIJA BHAVAN” RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4 AND 6; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE/ QUASH THE ACT NO.23/2016 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY ON 27.7.2016 i.e. THE KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT 2016 TO AMEND THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.43706 of 2016

BETWEEN:

M/s.DODDANNAVAR BROTHERS (REGD. PARTNERSHIP FIRM) DODDANNAVAR COMPOUND NEAR FORT, BELGAUM-590 016

35 REP. BY ITS G.P.A. HOLDER SRI.RACHAPPA M. SARADAGI ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE) AND:

OF FORESTS, "ARANYA BHAVAN" 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016 ENACTED

36 UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME AND ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.43871 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

SATHVAHANA ISPAT LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 & HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.314, SRI.RAMAKRISHNA TOWER NAGARJUNA NAGAR HYDERABAD-500 073 HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY REPRESENTED BY ITS AGM (HR & ADMN) ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

37 3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.8.16) … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF 2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND AGAINST BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ULTRAVIRES PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 AND THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER OR THEREON AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A DTD.27.7.2016 AND ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.43941 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

BELLARY ISPAT (P) LTD., PLOT No.16, KIADB MUNDARGI BELLARY BELLARY-583 102 HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY

38 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU -560 003

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.8.16) … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,

39 ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF 2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND AGAINST BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ULTRAVIRES PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 AND THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER OR THEREON AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A DTD.27.7.2016 AND ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.43948 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

BALAJISWAMY PREMIUM STEELS (P) LTD PLOT 16, JIADB, INDUSTRIAL AREA 2ND PHASE, BELLARY-583 102 HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

40 DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU -560 003

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.8.16) … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF 2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND AGAINST BASIC

41 STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ULTRAVIRES PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 AND THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER OR THEREON AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A DTD.27.7.2016 AND ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.43949 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

MUKUND LIMITED No.226, BAJAJ BHAVAN JAMNALAL BAJAJ MARG NARIMON POINT MUMBAI-400 021 HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LIOSONING OFFICER ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

42 ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU -560 003

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.8.16) … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF 2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND AGAINST BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ULTRAVIRES PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 AND THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER OR THEREON AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A DTD.27.7.2016 AND ETC.,

43 In Writ Petition No.43950 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA SPONGE IRON MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, No.39/1B/27-4, BLOCK No.7 TALUR ROAD, OPP:SAKTHI NURSING HOME PARVATHI NAGAR, BELLARY-583 101 HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU -560 003

44 (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.8.16) … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF 2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTIONS AND AGAINST BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ULTRAVIRES PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 AND THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER OR THEREON AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 27.07.2016 AND ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.43951 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

IRON ORE END USERS ASSOCIATION HEAD OFFICE, POST BOX.No.34 BHUBANESWAR-751 001 HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

45 DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU -560 003

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.8.16) … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF 2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTIONS AND AGAINST BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO

46 ULTRAVIRES PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 AND THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER OR THEREON AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A DATED 27.07.2016 AND ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.43969 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.BMM ISPAT LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 WITH ITS OFFICE AT No.101 1ST FLOOR, “PRIDE ELITE” No.10, MUSEUM ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-PR Mr.SILAS NERALLA ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1, 2, 5, 6 AND 7; SHRI.B.C.SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.4; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT ACT) 2016 PUBLISHED IN

48 OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 (THE KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016, AMENDING THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963), AT ANNEXURE-H AND TO DECALRE THE SAME TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

In Writ Petition No.44107 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

SRIKALAHASTHI PIPES LIMITED RACHAGUNNERI-517 641 SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS Sr.GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) SRI.KRISHNA KANODIA ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE) AND:

OF FORESTS, “ARANYA BHAVAN”

49 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AND 4TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED WITH LEAVE OF THE COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 23.8.16) … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.44206 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

JANKI CROP LTD CHITTOR ROAD, BHILWARA RAJASTHAN–311 001 HAVING ITS INDUSTRY AT BELLARY

50 REPRESENTED BY ITS CORPORATE RELATIONS OFFICER

...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.RAGHAVACHARYULU, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

OF FOREST, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003

(AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.8.16) … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH,

51 ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT 2016 [ACT NO.23 OF 2016] IS ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTIONS AND AGAINST BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ALSO ULTRAVIRES PROVISIONS OF THE FOREST CONSERVATION ACT, 1980 AND THE RULES AND ORDERS MADE THEREUNDER OR THEREON AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH AMENDMENT ACT AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 27.07.2016.

In Writ Petition No.44233 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

JAI RAJ ISPAT LIMITED HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT No.8, PHASE III, IDA, JEEDIMETLA HYDERABAD-500 055, ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL), SRI.KATAKAM SUNEEL BABU ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

OF FORESTS, “ARANYA BHAVAN” 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

53 In Writ Petition Nos.44253-44260 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

54 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY Mr.BASANT PODDAR

(BY SHRI.S.GANESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.ADITHYA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE) AND:

55 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.4)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT 2016 [KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016] [ANNEXURE-A] IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AB INITIO.

In Writ Petition No.44270 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

SRI.R.CHARUCHANDRA S/O.Dr.NAGAN GOWDA

56 AGED AROUND 78 YEARS R/O.Dr.NAGAN GOWDA GARDENS STATION ROAD, HOSPET-583 201 BELLARY DISTRICT

...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN

18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM

BANGALORE-560 003

BELLARY CIRCLE

BELLARY-583 101

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND

57 SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, THAT THE KARNATAKA FORESTS AMENDMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23 OF 2016 DTD:27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.44271 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.HARE KRISHNA METALICS PVT. LTD., SY No.20, KASANKANDI ROAD HIREBAGANAL, KOPPAL-583 228 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT Mr.SANJAY MALPANI S/O.SRI.B.N.MALPANI ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:

OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN

18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM

BANGALORE-560 003

BELLARY CIRCLE

BELLARY-583 101

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE KARNATAKA FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23/2016 DTD.27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID.

In Writ Petition No.44329 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA AND COMPANY, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM

59 ‘VESCO HOUSE’, # 2/138, BELLARY ROAD SANDUR–583 119, BELLARY DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, Mr.K.S.NAGARAJ ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.S.GANESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN

18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

BANGALORE–560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND

60 SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2; SRIMATI.ANUPAMA HEGDE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 [KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016] [ANNEXURE-A] IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOID AB INITIO.

In Writ Petition No.44417 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.SREE KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD., REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SRI.MANJUNATH P #87, S.V.COLONY NEAR KUMARASWAMY TEMPLE CLUB ROAD, BELLARY-583 104 ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:

61 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN

18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM

BANGALORE-560 003

BELLARY CIRCLE

BELLARY-583 101

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, THAT THE KARNATAKA FORESTS AMENDMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23 OF 2016 DTD:27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NULL AND VOID ETC.,

62 In Writ Petition No.44727 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

KALYANI STEELS LIMITED HOSPET ROAD, GINIGERA KOPPAL DISTRICT-583 231 REPRESENTED BY ASST. GENERAL MANAGER SRI.ANAND SHIRSAT AGED 51 YEARS ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

OF FORESTS, “ARANYA BHAVAN” 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

63 5TH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 3; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE - RESPONDENT No.4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.45967 of 2016

BETWEEN:

M/s.M.HANUMANTHA RAO REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER ARUN CHIRANIA S/O.SHYAM SUNDAR CHIRANIA AGE: 48 YEARS, No.37, MAIN ROAD PATEL NAGAR, BELLARY-583 101 ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.DHIRAJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

64 DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFIARS VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1, 2, 5 AND 6;

65 SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT ACT) 2016 PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 (THE KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016, AMENDING THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963), COPYOF THE WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND TO DECALRE THE SAME TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

In Writ Petition No.46231 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

VENKATAKA SAI ISPAT INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT No.301, P.S.RESIDENCY JAI HIND ENCLAVE, MADHAPUR HYDERABAD, TELENGANA-500 081 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Mr.K.L.N.PRASAD ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.K.ARAVIND KAMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

AND ENVIRONMENT, M.S.BUILDING Dr.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

66 BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

OF FORESTS, “ARANYA BHAVAN” 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 AT ANNEXURE-K AS DISCRIMINATORY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE IT DOWN BY ISSUING.

In Writ Petition No.46232 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

HINDUSTAN CALCINED METALS PRIVATE LIMITED REGD OFFE: 60/356-A, MODI BHAVAN HOSPET ROAD, ALLIPURA BELLARY–583 105 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SRI.D.V.MAHESH KUMAR ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)

67 AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.46233 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

MINERA STEEL & POWER PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

68 SRI.TANVEER AHMED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: 811/2, NH63, HOSPET ROAD ALIPUR, BELLARY-583 105 ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS

69 DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.46234 of 2016

BETWEEN:

BIOP STEELS AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED REGD. OFF AT: MODI BHAVAN HOSPET ROAD, ALLIPUR BELLARY-583 104 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SRI.D.V.MAHESH KUMAR ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND

70 SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.46532 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.THAKUR INDUSTRIES No.F-2, 1ST FLOOR, R.R.KUTEERA DOOR No.48, 29TH WARD BDCC BANK COLONY, M.J.NAGAR HOSPET-583 201 BELLARY DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY PARTNER Mr.M.PRAKASH LALWANI ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

71 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR

OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN 18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE-560 003

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT THAT THE KARNATAKA FORESTS AMENDMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23 OF 2016 DTD:27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL NULL AND VOID ETC.,

72 In Writ Petition No.46533 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.KEJ MINERALS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 # 17, SRI.RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT ‘D’-BLOCK, OPP. M.E.I., TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560 022

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR NAROTTAM KEJRIWAL S/O.SHRI.N.P.KEJRIWAL

...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE) AND:

OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN

18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM

BANGALORE-560 003

BELLARY CIRCLE

BELLARY-583 101

73 4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BELLARY DIVISION BELLARY-583 101

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 4; SHRI.ADITYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.M.KESHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR RESPONDENT No.5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE BY ISSUE OF AN APPROPRIATE WRIT THAT THE KARNATAKA FORESTS AMENDMENT ACT, KARNATAKA ACT 23/2016 DATED 27.07.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL , NULL AND VOID ETC.,

In Writ Petition No.46815 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

MARUTI ISPAT & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED 5-4-83, RAMA TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR TSK CHAMBERS, M.G.ROAD SECUNDERABAD-500 003 ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)

74 AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23/2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

In Writ Petition No.46963 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

M/s.S.V.CHETTY IRON ORE MINES OLD INCOME TAX OFFICE

75 BUILDING, NEAR SAHAKARI KALYANA MANTAPA N.C.COLONY, HOSPET-583 201 REPRESENTED BY Mr.MALLANAGOUDA ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.M.V.SUNDER RAMAN, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.K.ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.07.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

In Writ Petition No.47713 of 2016:

BETWEEN:

SRI.V.N.K.MENON S/O LATE SRI S K NAIR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS VILLA No.159, 1ST PHASE “ADARSH PALM RETREAT” DEVERABISANAHALLI BELANDUR POST OUTER RING ROAD BANGALORE-560 103 AND HAVING MINES OFFICE AT No.6, KHB COLONY, SANDUR-583 119 BELLARY DISTRICT ...PETITIONER

(BY SHRI.UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI.K.N.PHANINDRA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

77 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.S.K.BAGARIA, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SHRI.A.S.PONNANNA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND SHRI.VENKATASWAMY GANGADHAR BHANUPRAKASH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE KARNATAKA FOREST [AMENDMENT] ACT, 2016 ENACTED UNDER KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2016 AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON 27.7.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREBY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging, inter alia, the Constitutional validity of Act 23 of 2016, amending Chapter XI-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (‘Forest Act’ for short).

79 4. The validity of levy under Section 98-A of the Forest Act was challenged in this Court, contending inter alia that the said levy was in fact a fee, and such a fee could not have been levied as there was no quid pro quo with reference to the quantum of levy. This Court, in the case of Gurusiddappa Nurandappa Uppin and etc. etc. v. State of Karnataka and another etc. (AIR 1981 KAR 216), rejecting the contention of the petitioners therein, held that the levy under Section 98-A was not a ‘fee’, but answers the description of ‘tax’.

80 in Writ Petition No.35525 of 1993 and connected writ petitions (R.Rampapathi v. State of Karnataka and others) held that the forest development tax was not leviable on the royalty. The writ appeals filed thereon, as also the Special Leave Petitions filed by the State Government before the Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.No.3742 - 46 of 1999 (State of Karnataka v. R.Rampapathi) stood dismissed.

81 Corporation or Mysore Minerals Limited, whichever was higher. So far as the mines situated in the Ballari circle are concerned, by a communication dated October 13, 2008, the forest development tax was sought to be recovered at 12% p.a.

82 2016 and other connected cases before the Supreme Court of India.

83 and other judicial pronouncements. Therefore, without altering the basis of the judicial pronouncements, the State could not have brought in the amendment only by adding explanations; (iii) No fee is leviable unless there is a quid pro quo in the form of a service or benefit;

(ii) the concept of quid pro quo has undergone a total transformation. Further, environmental jurisprudence has also undergone a sea change. The levy under Section 98-A goes into a specific fund called ‘Karnataka Forest Development Fund’ as stipulated under Section 98-B and therefore, there is a direct nexus between the purpose and the object to be achieved. It has been held by the Apex Court that

84 it is not necessary to establish that those who pay the tax must receive direct or special benefit;

(iii) the Net Present Value (NPV), which the assessee pays under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, in proportion to the forest land diverted, is utilised for eco restoration activities, the benefits of which are enjoyed by the Society as a whole. The forest development fee fulfils the criteria of quid pro quo as the said fee shall be used for raising plantation for Protection, Conservation and Management of Forest and Wild Life; and other ancillary purposes;

(iv) this Court in the case of NMDC supra, ought not to have relied upon the findings of a Co-ordinate Bench to declare that the levy is in the form of a ‘tax’ and not ‘fee’. But, ought to have re-examined the entire issue keeping in view, the environmental jurisprudence especially with regard to the concept of quid pro quo.

85 13. Mr. S.K.Bagaria, learned Senior advocate for the State, arguing in support of the impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016), made following submissions: (i) the judgment of the Gurusiddappa does not come in the way, inasmuch as, by the impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016), what is sought to be charged is ‘fee’ and not ‘tax’;

(ii) this Court, while allowing NMDC supra, has held; • firstly, that having regard to the context in the expression, ‘a body’ would mean an artificial person created by a legal authority. Therefore, the expression ‘a body’ cannot have a reference to an individual or a natural person; • secondly, placing reliance on Gurusiddappa supra, repelled the contention advanced on behalf of the State, that the forest development tax is in the nature of a fee, which could be imposed having regard to Entry 47 List III of the Constitution; (iii) the impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016) has been brought in after curing the aforementioned aspects. The purpose of the amendment is to:

86 (a) declare the meaning and purpose of the word ‘a body notified by the State Government’ occurring in Section 98-A; (b) restate the nature of levy and declare that it is in the nature of fee; and (c) validate collection of forest development tax or forest development fee from 2008 onwards. (iv) the levy under Section 98-A of the Forest Act, though earlier called as tax was always in the nature of fee, having all the ingredients of fee and the legislature has only re-stated the same;

(v) the forest development fee is intended to augment the resources required for the State Government to carry out it’s duties as the custodian of natural resources in accordance with the doctrine of public trust. The funds required to achieve the objective of National Forest Policy are enormous, and a beginning in this direction has been made, out of the resources augmented by the collection of levy;

87 (vi) after expansion of scope of Section 98-B(4) by the amendment Act, 2016, the levy collected under Section 98-A can be spent for raising of plantation, afforestation and management of wild life;

(vii) that an examination of the Chapter I to XII of the Forest Act shows that the said Act is regulatory in nature. To impose a regulatory fee, there is no requirement of quid pro quo;

(viii) that the entire field is not occupied by the MMDR Act. This Court has elaborately considered this aspect in the NMDC case, supra and held that tax and fee is not a subject matter dealt by the MMDR Act. Thus, the State legislature is not denuded of it’s power to impose levy either in the form of forest development tax or forest development fee having regard to Entry 54 List I of the Constitution and the MMDR Act;

(ix) that the levy under the NPV and the compensatory afforestation charges and the forest development fee are mutually exclusive and there is no duplication;

88 (x) the levy now sought to be imposed in the form of fee is not in the form of additional royalty, as the instant levy is on the disposal of forest produce (minerals);

(xi) that the levy being a fee is not violative of article 286(1) of the Constitution; and

(xii) that, irrespective of the amendment, the levy collected from August 16, 2008, is not admittedly paid by the lessees, but by the purchasers of the forest produce, who inturn would have passed on the burden to other processors and eventually to the consumers. Therefore, any refund of the same amounts to unjust enrichment, inasmuch as the burden of tax has been passed on to the purchaser.

89 15. This Court in the case of NMDC supra, has held that ‘Forest development Tax’ is a ‘tax’ leviable under Entry 54 List II and it is not a fee within the scope of Entry 47 of List III. FDT being in the nature of a sales tax, following the dictum of the Division Bench in Gurusiddappa (supra), it is held that it is neither compensatory nor regulatory in nature. It is compulsory exaction and not a fee.

90 “7. In Guru Siddappa v State of Karnataka AIR 1981 Kar 216, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court had held that the Forest Development Tax (FDT) levied on the purchase price of forest produce was within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 54 of List-II and constitutionally valid. Although the unamended section 98A(1) refers to the levy of a tax, the impost is more in the nature of a fee. The amount collected by way of forest development tax is earmarked for development and regeneration of forest and does not go to the general revenue of the State to be spent for general public purpose. This is also made clear by section 98B of the Act which specifies that the Forest Development tax (FDT) and interest that is levied and collection under section 98A will form part of the Karnataka Forest Development Fund. The Forest Development Tax (FDT) and other amounts specified in section 98B(2), although credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State, is later appropriated and transferred to the aforesaid Karnataka Forest Development Fund.

Validation: 10.1 The State Government has levied and collected more than Rupees 3500 crores as Forest Development Tax (FDT) after

91 the impugned notification was issued in 2008. All the petitioners in the above judgment conceded that they were disputing the levy only upto 2011. However, it is proposed to validate such collections both by the lease holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area and by the Monitoring Committee, from the purchasers of minerals till date. The Present Bill seeks to achieve the objects as mentioned above and also to provide for the validation of the levy and collection of Forest Development Tax (FDT). Clause 6 of the Bill, inter alia, provides that any demand and/or any action taken under the provisions of the Act as in existence prior to this amendment Bill shall be deemed to have taken or levied under the new law after the amendment. This will validate the demand made by deeming it to have been made under the amended law and thus protect the revenue of the State. This Bill thus cures the infirmity and removes the defect found in the existing provisions and makes adequate provisions in the validation clause for a valid imposition of the Forest Development Tax and Forest Development Fee.

10.2 The State Government proposes to recomputed the Forest Development Fee as per prescribed rules or guidelines. If the demand as computed as per new rules or guidelines is lesser than the amount of Forest Development Fee demanded under the erstwhile section 98A or any notification issued thereunder, the lesser amount will be payable as Forest Development Fee.

10.3 A provision is also proposed to exempt or reduce Forest Development Tax (FDT) or Forest Development Fee by Government by notification prospectively or retrospectively in public interest by any specific clause of person or in respect of any specified forest produce.” (Emphasis supplied) 19. The specific case of the State Government, as discernable from the written submissions is, though, the levy under Section 98-A of the Forest Act was earlier called as ‘tax’

92 it has always been in the nature of ‘fee’. It is also the specific case of the State that this contention was urged in the NMDC case, and the same was rejected.

93 “KA-BG-GPO/2515/WPP-47/2006-08

KARNATAKA STATE GAZETTTE OFFCIALLY PUBLISHED SPECIAL EDITION

Part- IV-A Bangalore, Wednesday, August 27, 2008 (Bhadrapada 5, Shaka Varsha, 1930) No.937

FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT SECRETARIAT NOTIFICATION No.FEE 248 FDP 2006, Bangalore, Dated:16th August, 2008

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 98-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Karnataka Act No.5 of 1964), the Government of Karnataka hereby notifies the lease holder of mines and quarries situated in forest area for the purpose of the said sub-section.

This will come into effect from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.

By order and in the name of Government of Karnataka,

VADAGAVE BAAVARAJ Under Secretary to Government, Forest, Ecology & Environment Department”

94 contemplated levy of forest development ‘tax’. This Court having quashed the Notification dated August 16, 2008 and consequential communications in the NMDC Case, the argument advanced on behalf of the State that their assumption of levy was always a fee, must fail.

8[*****]: 1[*****]:

2[provided also that , in respect of minerals which is a forest produce the rate of Forest Development fee shall be twelve percent.] 3[Explanation: (1) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-section, the words "a

95 body notified by the State Government" shall mean and include all entities directly or indirectly engaged in disposing of forest produce found in, or brought from, a forest, as individuals or other entities including Hindu Undivided Family, Company or foreign Company, partnership firms, societies, cooperative societies, other bodies corporate, trusts, lease holders of mines and quarries situated in forest area or any other association or committee or person, whether or not such individuals or entities constituted TABLE Sl No Forest produce When disposed of to (1) (2) (3) 1. Timber, Firewood, grass, Charcoal and Eucalyptus Industries 2. Bamboo, reds and canes Pulp and Paper Industries except Cottage Industries; 3. Sandalwood (a) Sandalwood Oil, Factories; and (b) Others, except; (i )Artisans (ii)Religious Institution; and (iii) Cottage Industries 4. Minor Forest produce as defined in the rule but not falling under Serial numbers 1 and 2 Industries except Large scale Multipurpose Co- operative Societies (LAMPS)]”.

themselves into a juristic entity and whether or not such individuals or entities collectively come together and act as a group or body.

Explanation: (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purpose of this sub-section, the words, "or otherwise" includes disposal through captive consumption.

Explanation: (3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that Forest Development Fee shall be levied on the disposal of the forest produce irrespective of whether such forest produce is intended for sale inside or outside the State of Karnataka or for the purpose of export or for captive consumption.] 1[(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no 2[fee] shall be payable to the State Government by a

96 corporation, owned or controlled by the State Government to the extent of 3[fee] not levied and collected by it during the period from fourteenth day of February, 1978, till the commencement of the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Act, 1988.]

4[(1-B) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection(1), no fee shall be levied on the forest produce which is not found in or not brought from the forest except when it is disposed of by the State Government.

(1-C) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection(1), no Forest Development Fee on forest produce shall be payable to the State Government, for which no demand was raised during the period from 16th August of 2008 till the commencement of the Karnataka Forest (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Karnataka Act 41 0f 2015); and

(1-D) The State Government may make rules regarding manner of Levy, computation and collection of Forest Development fee from a retrospective date.]

(2) The said 5[fee] shall be collected along with such consideration.

(3) It is hereby declared that the said 1[fee] shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any 2[fee] payable in respect of such produce under any other law in force.

3[(4) There shall be levied and collected interest at the rate of eighteen percent per annum till the date of payment or recovery of all 4[fee] dues.]

98-B. Forest Development Fund.—(1) There shall be constituted for the State of Karnataka a Fund called the Karnataka Forest Development Fund. 5[(2) The following shall form part of the Karnataka Forest Development Fund, namely:— (a) the 6[fee] 7[and interest] levied and collected under section 98-A;

97 (b) the money recovered for raising compensatory plantation in lieu of the forest area made over for non-forestry purposes; (c) sandal surcharges collected for the development of sandalwood resources;

(2-A) The amounts referred to in sub-section (2) shall first be credited to the Consolidated Fund of the State and under appropriation duly made by law in this behalf, be entered in and transferred to the Karnataka Forest Development Fund.]

(3) Any amount transferred to the said fund under sub- section (2), shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State. 8[(4). The amount at credit of the said fund shall be expended only for one or more of the following purposes, namely:-

(a) raising of plantations in notified forest areas and such other purposes as are ancillary thereto namely soil and moisture conservation works in notified forest areas; (b) consolidation of the boundaries of notified forest areas; (c) acquisition of private areas for the consolidation of forests; (d) construction and maintenance of forest housing in rural areas for frontline staff; (e) training, capacity building, research and technology; (f) sustaining Joint Forest Planning and Management activities and the Village Forest Committees/eco development committees; (g) rehabilitation and resettlement of people from interior forest areas; (h) such other activities relating to Forest development or management or wild life protection and management as may be notified by the State Government from time to time.]”

98 24. If the amended provision is read in juxtaposition with the un-amended provision, it is noticed that the word ‘tax’ is substituted by the word ‘fee’.

99 levy is not in the nature of compensatory tax as found in the Automobile Transport's case. In the said case the tax levied by the Rajasthan State on motor vehicles carrying goods and passengers was challenged by the petitioners therein on the ground that it was violative of Article 301 of the Constitution which provides that trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the country shall be free from all restrictions. The contention was negatived by the Supreme Court holding that the tax was compensatory in nature in that it was meant to compensate the State in respect of the money required to be expended for construction and maintenance of roads and bridges which were being used by the petitioners and others for the purpose of trade, commerce and inter course. The levy under Section 98A of the Act in a compulsory exaction of money for public purpose and answers the description of tax. It is neither compensatory nor regulatory in nature. In any event, it is not shown how existence of quid pro quo is necessary to impart validity to the levy even if it is compensatory and/or regulatory in nature when the levy is a tax and not a fee. Hence, the third contention is devoid of any substances.”

(Emphasis supplied)

100 Honourable High Court, in the NMDC case ought not to have relied on the findings of its coordinate bench to declare that the levy is in the nature of a tax and not a fee and should have re- examined the entire issue in light of the facts mentioned in the above paras and should have taken into consideration inter alia the fact that Tax and Environmental jurisprudence, especially with regard to concept of quid pro quo, have undergone a total transformation in light of the recent decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that the said levy, even before the impugned amendment, was in the nature of fee as it fulfilled all the criteria of a fee as enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court, as explained in the above paras. The impugned amendment has only has restated the same. The same is evident from the Statement of Objects and reasons appended to the Bill which is appended herewith as ANNEXURE R1.”. (Emphasis supplied)

101 governed by the provisions of the MMDR Act. Declaration contained in Section 2 of the MMDR Act, is unequivocal and reads as follows:- “2. Declaration as to the 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.”

102 no stretch of imagination can the differential levies be placed in the same bracket.

In this regard, the following chart of objective comparison of the above mentioned levies makes it amply clear that these levies are in no way duplication, as they are neither levied on the same assesse, nor on the same transaction or are meant to be utilised for the same purpose.

A. Following is the comparison of the levies of NPV/CA with Forest Development Fee (FDF): LEVY Compensatory Afforestation Charge (CA) Net Present Value (NPV) Forest Development Fee (FDF) Remarks Legal Competence Entry No. 47 read with Entry 20 of List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution Entry No. 47 read with Entry 20 of List III of Schedule VII of the Constitution Entry 17 A of List III read with Entry 47 of List III of Schedule VII and or Entry 54 of List-II read with Entry 66 of List-II of Schedule VII of the Constitution.

Statute under which it is levied FC Act & EP Act FC Act & EP Act Karnataka Forest Act, 1963

Specific objective of levy Compensate the loss of forest cover due to diversion of forest land. Compensate for the ecological service lost due to diversion of forest land i.e. to get back, in the long run, benefits which are lost by diversion of forest land for non-forestry For managing, improving, protecting and enhancing the forests and wildlife of the entire State of Karnataka as detailed in the Karnataka Objective is distinctly different for all the three levies.

103 purposes. Forest (Amendment) Act 2015, wherein the existing Forest cover is enhanced through afforestation of degraded forest lands of Karnataka by raising forest plantations. When is the Levy charged Levy is charged when there is diversion of forest land under FC Act Levy is charged when there is diversion of forest land under FC Act Levy is charged when there is disposal of forest produce.

Levy used for what purpose For afforestation of proportionate forest/non forest land as stipulated by MOEF, GOI in lieu of the forest land diverted i.e, 280 sq. kms. For activities to compensate the ecological services lost due to diversion of forest area. This is in proportion to area diverted for non- forestry purpose i.e, 280 sq. kms. For managing, improving, protecting and enhancing the forests and wildlife of the entire State of Karnataka including afforestation in all the degraded forest areas of the State of Karnataka The fee or charge so levied in the three instances are used for different purposes and are mutually exclusive Levy is credited to which Fund Compensatory Afforestation Fund and managed as per CAF Act, 2016. Compensatory Afforestation Fund and managed as per CAF Act, 2016. Karnataka Forest Development Fund (KFDF), which came into existence from 1976. Compensatory Afforestation Fund receives funds collected from user agencies/lessees towards CA, ACA,PCA, NPV and all other amounts recovered from such agencies under the Forest (Conservation)

104 Act, 1980.

KFDF receives funds collected from the Forest Development Fee and sandal surcharges collected for development of Sandalwood resource Rate at which the levy is collected Present rate is Rs.2.55 Lakh/ hectare basis Present rate varies from Rs 4.38 Lakh /hectare to Rs 10.43 Lakh /hectare depending on the eco class. Present rate is 12% on the amount of consideration. While the CA and NPV charges are one time payments to be done while seeking approval under FC Act while FDF is to be collected and remitted every time there is disposal of forest produce. Levy collection is directly proportional to Hectares of land diverted Hectares of land diverted Consideration collected for each disposal of forest produce.

Responsibility to collect the levy State Government State Government The State Government, Corporation owned or controlled by State Govt. and the body notified by State Government, who is disposing of the forest produce. The State Government has notified under 98A, the mining lease holders for this

105 purpose. Who pays the levy The User agency/lessee to which the forest land has been leased for a specific period under FC Act. It is a onetime payment. The User agency/lessee to which the forest land has been leased for a specific period under FC Act. It is a onetime payment. The entity to which the forest produce is disposed of either through sale or otherwise, every time disposal of forest produce takes place. The User agency/lessee has only been given the responsibility of collecting the levy from the entity to whom it is disposed and remit the same to the Government. Status of implementati on in Karnataka MOEF, GOI has till date stipulated afforestation of approximately 24,673 ha of land as compensatory afforestation in lieu of the forest land diverted. Out of which approximately 22,425 ha has already been planted. NPV is being utilized for carrying out various forestry activities including forest boundary consolidation, survey and demarcation of forest area, infrastructure development, natural assisted regeneration, Protection and Management of forests and Wild life etc in proportion to 280 sq. kms. Till now approximately 3,88,899 Hectares of forest land in Karnataka has been afforested from 1977-78 till date under the Karnataka Forest Development Fund (KFDF) to which the FDF is credited to.

106 afforestation charges are collected by the leaseholders to compensate, for the ecological loss and diversion of forest. Therefore, though the object of the State Government is laudable, we are afraid, the contention that there is no duplication is unsustainable.

107 impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016) and contended that this Court in NMDC case had quashed the Notification on the ground that the expression ‘a body’ would not include lease holders of mines. The basis of this finding has been removed by adding the explanation (1). But, the express finding recorded by this Court in paragraph 19(c) of NMDC case is as follows: “(c) Re: Point No.(iii).- It is held that FDT is a tax leviable under Entry 54 List II and it is not a ‘fee’ within the scope of Entry 47 List III. FDT being in the nature of a Sales Tax, following the dictum of the Division Bench in Gurusiddappa, it is held, it is neither compensatory nor regulatory in nature. It is compulsory extraction and not a fee.”

(Emphasis supplied)

108 cent will have retrospective effect from April 1, 1966. The judgment of the High Court declaring the levy of sales tax on excise duty, education cess and health cess to be bad become conclusive and is binding on the parties. It may or may not have been competent for the State Legislature to validly remove the lacuna and remedy the defect in the earlier levy by seeking to impose sales tax through any amendment on excise duty, education cess and health cess; but, in any event, the State Government has not purported to do so through the Amending Act. As a result of the judgment of the High Court declaring such levy illegal, the State became obliged to refund the excess amount wrongfully and illegally collected by virtue of the specific direction to that effect in the earlier judgment. It appears that the only object of enacting the amended provision is to nullify the effect of the judgment which became conclusive and binding on the parties to enable the State Government to retain the amount wrongfully and illegally collected as sales tax and this object has been sought to be achieved by the impugned amendment which does not even purport or seek to remedy or remove the defect and lacuna but merely raises the rate of duty from 6 ½ per cent to 45 per cent and further proceeds to nullify the judgment and order of the High Court. In our opinion, the enhancement of the rate of duty from 6 ½ per cent to 45 per cent with retrospective effect is in the facts and circumstances of the case clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. The defect or lacuna is not even sought to be remedied and the only justification for the steep rise in the rate of duty by the amended provision is to nullify the effect of the binding judgment. The vice of illegal collection in the absence of the removal of the illegality which led to the invalidation of the earlier assessments on the basis of illegal levy, continues to taint the earlier levy. In our opinion, this is not a proper ground for imposing the levy at the higher rate with retrospective effect.”......... (Emphasis supplied) 36. In the case on hand, though, it was strenuously contended on behalf of the State that the legal basis in the

109 un-amended Act, on which NMDC judgment was rendered, has been removed, a plain reading of the statement of objects and reasons extracted hereinabove, shows that State were conscious of the fact that, this Court in Gurusiddappa, held levy of tax, Constitutionally valid. However, as discernable from paragraph No.9 of the objects and reasons, the State proceeded to impose their assumption that ‘tax’ was in fact, ‘fee’ and imposed the levy all over again by re-christening it as ‘fee’. 37. The view taken in the case of D.Cawasji (supra), has been quoted with the approval by the Supreme Court of India in the case of S.T.Sadiq v. State of Kerala and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 400 relied upon by Mr. D.L.N. Rao.

110 reported in (2004) 2 SCC 249 relied upon by Mr.D.L.N.Rao, the State therein, attempted to impose cess on the production of energy by adding an explanation. It was noticed that the charging Section permitted impost of cess on sale of power. However, the State sought to impose the cess on production by adding an explanation. The Supreme Court of India, held that the explanation cannot be read as changing the incident of levy by stating thus: “25. The expression used by the Explanation is “for the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 3, the cess shall be levied on units of electrical energy sold or supplied”. Since the purpose of sub-section (2) of Section 3 continues to be a levy on production, the word “levied” in the context would at the highest mean “assessment” and not “imposition”. It is not the respondents' case that any new or additional or alternative cess was sought to be introduced by the Explanation. Thus despite the Explanation, the charge in Section 3(2) continues to be on the production of the electrical energy units and nothing else. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3 continues to except electrical energy produced from the cess in certain cases. The Explanation, if it is read with the main provision, introduces certain contradictions and vagueness. A charging provision should be explicit, certain and clear in order to bind the subject. The outcome of the introduction of the Explanation to an otherwise unchanged Section 3(2) is a singularly ill-drawn provision. The 2003 amendment was obviously introduced for the purpose of rectifying the obvious error in Section 3(2), an object which cannot be achieved by introducing an Explanation since an Explanation cannot be read as changing or as interfering with the incidence of

111 the levy. It is not for us, particularly when legislative clarity is required since the statutory provision imposes a tax, to untangle the legislative confusion.”

(Emphasis supplied)

112 having remained on the statute book till July 27, 2016, nearly for a period of 35 years, after pronouncement of Gurusiddappa (supra), their argument that the State were always under the assumption that the levy was a ‘fee’ and not a ‘tax’, is noted, only to be rejected.

113 submissions, prayed that in the event the stand of the State be not accepted by this Court, the Forest Development Fees, already collected and utilised for the betterment of the ecology, might not be directed to be refunded to the petitioners.

114 collected by the State as ‘tax’ and the same has been declared illegal in NMDC (supra). Therefore, the State shall have no authority to retain the levy collected by seeking to appropriate the same by virtue of the impugned amendment (Act 23 of 2016). We, therefore, direct the refund of the forest development fees already collected by the State.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

cp*