IMPORTANT POINTS
State of Goa was obliged to grant fresh mining leases in accordance with law and not second renewals.
The State of Goa was not under any constitutional obligation to grant fresh mining leases through the process of competitive bidding or auction.
The second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa quashed.

Headnote:(a) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 8(3) and Section 10B r/w Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Within a week of Central Government making competitive bidding must for grant of mining leases, Government of Goa granting a total of 56 renewal of mining leases – Deemed mining leases in Goa expiring on 22-11-1987 and the maximum period (20 years) of renewal of the deemed mining leases also expiring on 22-11-2007 – Mining by lessees in Goa illegal after 22-11-2007 – Requiring fresh lease – Not second renewal – Grant of a fresh lease is not the same as the renewal of a lease – Held, grant a second renewal of the mining leases erroneous and contrary to Goa Foundation. (Para 29, 36, 41, 48, 55, 58)
       (2014) 6 SCC 590; (2014) 6 SCC 738; WP (C) No. 435 of 2012 – Relied upon
       MANU/MH/1292/2014 : 2014 SCC OnLIne Bom 997 – Set aside
       1995 Supp (1) SCC 587; (1973) 2 SCC 825; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 487; (2004) 12 SCC 118; (2015) 8 SCC 655; (1997) 1 SCC 650 – Referred
       (2014) 14 SCC 155 – Distinguished
       (b) Natural Resources – Disposal – For revenue maximization – Disposal through auction – Not a constitutional mandate – However, auction process should not be given a go-bye without any justification. (Para 65, 69, 76)
       (2012) 3 SCC 1; (2014) 9 SCC 516; (2012) 10 SCC 1; 2017 (10) SCALE 346 – Relied upon
       (c) Administration of justice – Judicial review – Policy matter – Amenable to judicial review if not serving the common good in terms of Article 39(b) and violative of Article 14 – However, Court must exercise restraint in setting aside a policy. (Para 74, 75)
       (2002) 2 SCC 333 – Relied upon
       (d) Natural resources – Iron ore mining in Goa – Leases renewed without competitive bidding – State only getting royalty – Ore not used in domestic market – Meant only for export – Mining not serving any public or welfare purpose – State not maximizing revenue – Benefit only to private miners – Not justified. (Para 94)
       (2010) 13 SCC 1 – Distinguished
       (e) Grant of Mining Leases Policy – Articles 14 and 39(b), Constitution of India – Judicial review – the policy decision must be backed by a social or welfare purpose – Alienation of natural resources only for profit maximising of private entrepreneurs – Adoption of means other than competitive and maximise revenue may be arbitrary. (Para 101)
       (2012) 10 SCC 1; (2014) 6 SCC 590 – Relied upon
       (f) Grant of Mining Leases Policy – Mining operations suspended in Goa with effect from 10th September, 2012, i.e., for two years – Renewal of mining leases in 2014 – State ignoring illegalities committed by every lease holder – Acted in haste without waiting for report of EAC required under the policy – Leases renewed even before the Policy was finalized and gazetted – To defeat introduction of auction process by Government of India – Section 8(3), MMDR Act, 1957 – – “Interests of mineral development” – Some mining leases renewed without even receipt of any report from the Indian Bureau of Mines and even before the expiry of the statutory waiting period u/rule 24A(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 – Held unjustified and illegal. (Para 107, 109, 111, 120, 124)
       (1996) 9 SCC 709 – Referred
       (g) Environmental law – Necessity if environmental clearance for renewal – Government of India intimating Government of Goa that fresh environmental clearance not required at the time of renewal of the mining lease – Contrary to (2004)12 SCC 118 and (2017) 9 SCC 499 – A lease holder, at the time of renewal, will require fresh clearance notwithstanding a valid environmental clearance obtained under EIA 1994. (Para 131, 134)
       (2004)12 SCC 118; (2017) 9 SCC 499; (1987) 1 SCC 213; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504; 1995 Supp (1) SCC 587 – Relied upon
       (2013) 7 SCC 522 – Referred
       2012 SCC OnLine Del 4000 – Distinguished
       (h) Administration of justice – View expressed by Court and contrary view expressed by executive – Executive’s contrary view cannot overrule the view of the court. (Para 139)
       Facts of the case:
       This case relates to illegal mining of iron and manganese ore in Goa.
       Finding of the Court:
       The entire exercise undertaken by the State was a hasty charade, regardless of violations of the law by the mining lease holders, without any benefit to the Indian industry and without any concern for the health of the average Goan.
       Result: Writ petition and SLPs disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J

1. Rapacious and rampant exploitation of our natural resources is the hallmark of our iron ore mining sector - coupled with a total lack of concern for the environment and the health and well-being of the denizens in the vicinity of the mines. The sole motive of mining lease holders seems to be to make profits (no matter how) and the attitude seems to be that if the rule of law is required to be put on the backburner, so be it. Unfortunately, the

State is unable to firmly stop violations of the law and other illegalities, perhaps with a view to maximize revenue, but without appreciating the long term impact of this indifference. Another excuse generally put forth by the State is that of development, conveniently forgetting that development must be sustainable and equitable development and not otherwise.

2. Effective implementation and in some instances circumvention of the mining and environment related laws is a tragedy in itself. Laxity and sheer apathy to the rule of law gives mining lease holders a field day, being the primary beneficiaries, with the State being left with some crumbs in the form of royalty. For the State to generate adequate revenue through the mining sector and yet have sustainable and equitable development, the implementation machinery needs a tremendous amount of strengthening while the law enforcement machinery needs strict vigilance. Unless the two marry, we will continue to be mute witnesses to the plunder of our natural resources and left wondering how to retrieve an irretrievable situation.

3. The Government of India appears to have received information of large-scale illegal mining of iron ore and manganese ore in different States in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (the MMDR Act), the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and other rules and guidelines issued on the subject from time to time.

4. Acting on this information, the Government of India appointed Justice M.B. Shah a former judge of this Court as a commission of inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 by a notification dated 22nd November, 2010. The terms of reference of the Commission for the State of Goa were as follows:

2. The terms of reference of the Commission shall be –
(i) to inquire into and determine the nature and extent of mining and trade and transportation, done illegally or without lawful authority, of iron ore and manganese ore, and the losses therefrom; and to identify, as far as possible, the persons, firms, companies and others that are engaged in such mining, trade and transportation of iron ore and manganese ore, done illegally or without lawful authority;
(ii) to inquire into and determine the extent to which the management, regulatory and monitoring systems have failed to deter, prevent, detect and punish offences relating to mining, storage, transportation, trade and export of such ore, done illegally or without lawful authority, and the persons responsible for the same;
(iii) to inquire into the tampering of official records, including records relating to land and boundaries, to facilitate illegal mining and identify, as far as possible, the persons responsible for such tampering; and
(iv) to inquire into the overall impact of such mining, trade, transportation and export, done illegally or without lawful authority, in terms of destruction of forest wealth, damage to the environment, prejudice to the livelihood and other rights of tribal people, forest dwellers and other persons in the mined areas, and the financial losses caused to the Central and State Governments.
3. The Commission shall also recommend remedial measures to prevent such mining, trade, transportation and export done illegally or without lawful authority.”

5. Justice Shah visited Goa and after call

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 111

Cases Referred (25)