Supreme Court Seeks Odisha Advocate General's Presence After Different Stands Taken By State Lawyers On Miners' Plea

In the light of this fact, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli directed the Advocate General of the State of Odisha to appear before the court and explain the State's stand.

"Let the Advocate General come and explain the stand of the state. We can't monitor these processes. We have other important matters", the CJI said.

The Bench was considering a batch of applications filed by mining companies and lease owners seeking to dispose of the undisposed lying mined material and to resume mining operations subject to receipt of all requisite statutory clearances. The applications were filed in a 2014 PIL moved by the NGO Common Cause.

After the Counsel appearing for the State of Orissa sought time to reply to one of the applications, the Bench said, "The State advocates take different stands. We are watching. They can't take different stands. If they like they agree! If they don't, the say they want to take instructions, file something etc".

In response to the State opposing another application filed seeking disposal of the lying mined stock, the CJI remarked that the State counsels have changed their stands with different applications. 

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for Common Cause (which opposed unauthorized mining) submitted that the mining companies can be allowed to resume the mining after they fulfil three conditions, including having all the clearances, payment of all dues and subsisting leases.

"It is the state's responsibility to say, but they don't say. That's unfortunate. I don't want to make unnecessary comments against the state but we are watching", CJI further remarked.

The counsel appearing for one of the applicants informed the court, that the State has acknowledged that applicant lessee has paid the compensation for excess production, but since the payment has been done after the prescribed date, unless said delay is condoned by the court, the mineral cannot be allowed to be disposed of.

The Bench then inquired as to why the permission to dispose of the material is not being given by the State despite the payment of the compensation by the applicant.

The State counsel informed the court that the applicant has not provided the details of the stock. The State counsel further submitted that permission has also been denied on failure to pay the interest on the late payment of compensation.

The CJI pointed out that in some other cases, the pleas were allowed. "In other orders, they haven't said anything and said we allow", CJI said.

Referring to the State's affidavit, the State counsel clarified that in terms of court's orders, the lessee has to pay compensation along with interest in case of delayed payment calculated till date of making full payment. She added that in the case of the present applicant, the lessee has although has paid principal amount of compensation, but interest hasn't been paid being calculated till date of making payment. So the differential amount of one year hasn't been paid.

"From beginning I'm watching you take different stands in different applications. You were willing to receive money after condoning the delay and subject to clearances. You can't stall court like this. You want money, he is willing to pay money. Now you say something else. Who's responsible for all that? This way can we conduct the court?", CJI remarked.

"We know you are talking about the differential, the CJI is saying let them raise the amount of differential", Justice Kohli told the counsel.

"Attitude of state counsels is, whatever order they want to be passed should be passed. You write the orders we'll pass", the CJI expressed exasperation.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the stand taken may be different in different cases as the facts of each case are different.

The Bench however opined that the Advocate General of the State must clarify the State's stand. The matter will be heard next on April 18.

Case Title: Common Cause vs Union of India & Ors