Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 590
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED – APPELLANT
VERSUS
GOA FOUNDATION & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
M.A.NOS.1260, 1345, 1344, 1384 to 1387 of 2020 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.839 to 843, 847, 848 OF 2020,
Decided on : 13-10-2020
For the Petitioner(s):Prashant Bhushan, Yashraj Singh Deora, Sonal Mashankar, Shivangi Sud, Jayant Mohan, Sameer Parekh, Sumit Goel, Ninad Laud, Tanya Chaudhry, M/S. Parekh & Co., Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Devidas Pangam, Ruchira Gupta, Shishir Deshpande, Anurag Sharma, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Substantial question as to when royalty is payable, cannot be decided at this stage when Court is dealing with miscellaneous applications in a disposed of matter.
Headnote:
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 9 – Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 – Rule 12(1)(hh) – Mining Lease – Liability to pay royalty – Contention of lessees that royalty is payable at the time of removal or consumption, cannot be rejected outright – Substantial question as to when royalty is payable, cannot be decided at this stage when Court is dealing with miscellaneous applications in a disposed of matter – Lessees granted time up to end of January, 2021 for removal of the minerals excavated/mined on or before 15.03.2018 subject to payment of royalties and other charges – Quantity of mineral to be removed by each of lessees shall be determined by concerned officials with reference to records of Government maintained at relevant point of time – If within time stipulated above, lessees could not remove mineral, Government shall invoke power under Rule 12(1)(hh). (Paras 12 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Present applications filed by the lessees of manganese/iron ore mines, seeking extension of time for the transportation of the mineral alleged to have been mined before 15.03.2018. Two issues arise for consideration. They are :(1) whether the right to remove the mined minerals is only in respect of “the royalty paid ore” or upon payment of royalty at the time of movement and disposal; and (2) whether the State Government ought to have invoked Rule 12 (1)(hh) of the Rules or not?
Findings of Court:
In the judgment dated 30.01.2020, this Court has proceeded in good faith that all mining activities have been stopped on 15.03.2018 and that the mineral mined until then is what is sought to be removed now. Therefore, this should be made subject to the verification with reference to records.
Result : Applications disposed of with directions.
ORDER :
1. While M.A.Nos.1260, 1344, 1345, 1384, 1385, 1386 and 1387 of 2020 are applications filed by the lessees of manganese/iron ore mines, seeking extension of time for the transportation of the mineral alleged to have been mined before 15.03.2018, M.A.No.1625 of 2020 is filed by the Goa Foundation, which was the writ petitioner before the High Court and the first respondent in the Civil Appeals before this Court, praying for certain directions and for a clarification of the judgment delivered by this Court in Civil Appeal No.839 of 2020 dated 30.01.2020.
2. M.A.No.1653 of 2020 is by a person who claims to be one of the lease holders but who was not a party to the Civil Appeals. As the applicant was not a party to the Civil Appeals, he has come up with an application for intervention so as to enable him to seek extension of time for transporting the mineral allegedly extracted on or before 15.03.2018.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
4. Brief facts essential for the disposal of these applications are as follows:
(i) In Goa Foundation vs. Union of IndiaI, (2014) 6 SCC 590, this Court held that all ironore and manganeseore leases had expired on 22.11.2007 and that any mining operation carried out beyond the said date was illegal. While holding so, this Court also pointed out that for a second renewal of the mining lease, an order is required to be passed by the State;
(ii) The observations regarding second renewal of the mining leases, gave rise to a fresh set of litigations, which culminated in the decision in Goa Foundation vs. Sesa Sterlite Ltd.II, (2018) 4 SCC 218. In paragraph 154 of the said decision, this Court recorded 9 conclusions, one of which in para 154.6, reads as follows:
“...
154.6. The mining leaseholders who have been granted the second renewal in violation of the decision and directions of this Court in Goa Foundation [Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590] are given time to manage their affairs and may continue their mining operations till 15-3-2018. However, they are directed to stop all mining operations with effect from 16-3-2018 until fresh mining leases (not fresh renewals or other renewals) are granted and fresh environmental clearances are granted.”
(iii) The aforesaid directions led to a fresh bout of litigation, that culminated in the order by this Court on 30.01.2020 in Civil Appeal Nos.839-848 of 2020. The controversy that revolved around paragraph 154.6 Goa Foundation-II was as to whether the time given to the lease holders to manage their affairs up to 15.03.2018 would include the time to remove the mined mineral. This controversy was resolved by this Court in the judgment dated 30.01.2020 which we may call Goa Foundation-III. This Court held therein:
(1) that the only prohibition imposed by paragraph 154.6 of Goa Foundation-II was for carrying out mining operations and not transportation; and
(2) that the policy decision of the State of Goa dated 21.03.2018, to permit the transportation of mineral mined prior to 15.03.2018 was valid.
(iv) After so interpreting paragraph 154.6 of Goa Foundation II, this Court also took note of Rule 12(1)(gg) of The Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, which also allows a period of six months for the lessees to remove the excavated material, on the expiry or sooner termination of the term of lease. Accordingly, this Court, by its order dated 30.01.2020, granted a period of 6 months to all lease holders to transport the mineral already excavated on or before 15.03.2018;
(v) The time granted by this Court to the lease holders, by the order dated 30.01.2020 expired on 30.07.2020. A lock down was clamped on 24.03.2020 due to the pandemic.
Therefore, a few lessees have come up with the aforesaid applications for extension of time by six months with effect from 01.10.2020 for the transportation of the mineral allegedly extracted by them on or before 15.03.2018;
(vi) Contending that the ben
