Page 1

Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 435 OF 2012    

Goa Foundation … Petitioner

Versus Union of India & Ors.                             … Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) No. 99 OF 2013,

WRIT PETITION (C) No. 184 OF 2013,

TRANSFERRED CASE No.136 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T. P. (C) No. 8 OF 2013),

TRANSFERRED CASE No.133 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T.P.(C) No. 230 OF 2013),

TRANSFERRED CASE No.131 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T.P.(C) No. 1441 OF 2013),

TRANSFERRED CASE No.132 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T.P.(C) No. 1186 OF 2013),

TRANSFERRED CASE No.143 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T.P.(C) No. 574 OF 2013),

TRANSFERRED CASE No.140 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T.P.(C) No. 766 OF 2013),

TRANSFERRED CASE No.142 of 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T.P.(C) No. 770 OF 2013),

Page 2

TRANSFERRED CASE No.141 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T.P.(C) No. 776 OF 2013),

TRANSFERRED CASE No.139 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T.P.(C) No. 836 OF 2013),

TRANSFERRED CASE No.134 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T.P.(C) No. 864 OF 2013),

TRANSFERRED CASE No.135 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T.P.(C) No. 866 OF 2013),

AND

TRANSFERRED CASE No.138 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF T.P.(C) No. 869 OF 2013),

JUDGEMENT

A.  K. PATNAIK, J.   

1.  This  batch of  Writ  Petitions and Transferred Cases  

relate to mining in the State of Goa and as issues raised  

are  common  to  the  Writ  Petitions  and  the  Transferred  

Cases,  the cases have been analogously heard and are  

being disposed of by this common judgment.  

Facts relating to mining in Goa:

2. Prior  to  19.12.1961  when  Goa  was  a  Portuguese  

territory, its Portuguese Government had granted mining  

2

Page 3

concessions  in  perpetuity  to  concessionaires.   On  

19.12.1961,  Goa was liberated  and became part  of  the  

Indian Union and on 01.10.1963, the Mines and Minerals  

(Development  &  Regulation)  Act,  1957  (for  short  ‘the  

MMDR Act’) was made applicable to the State of Goa.  On  

10.03.1975,  the  Controller  of  Mining  Leases  issued  a  

notification calling upon every lessee and sub-lessee to file  

returns under Rule 5 of the Mining Leases (Modification of  

Terms) Rules, 1956 and sent copies of the notification to  

the  concessionaires  in  Goa.   Aggrieved,  the  

concessionaires  moved  the  Bombay  High  Court,  Goa  

Bench, and by judgment dated 29.09.1983, in Vassudeva  

Madeva Salgaocar vs.  Union  of  India [1985(1)  Bom.  CR  

36], the Bombay High Court restrained the Union of India  

from treating the concessions as mining leases and from  

enforcing the notification against the concessionaires.

3. Parliament  thereafter  passed  the  Goa,  Daman and  

Diu  Mining  Concessions  (Abolition  and  Declaration  as  

Mining  Leases)  Act,  1987  (for  short  ‘the  Abolition  Act’)  

which received the assent of the President on 23.05.1987.  

Section  4  of  the  Abolition  Act  abolished  the  mining  

3

Page 4

concessions and declared that  with effect  from the 20th  

day of December, 1961, every mining concession will be  

deemed to be a mining lease granted under the MMDR Act  

and that the provisions of the MMDR Act will apply to such  

mining  lease.   Section  5  of  the  Abolition  Act  further  

provided that the concession holder shall  be deemed to  

have  become  a  holder  of  the  mining  lease  under  the  

MMDR Act in relation to the mines in which the concession  

relates and the period of such lease was to extend upto  

six months from the date when the Abolition Act received  

President’s assent, i.e. upto 22.11.1987.  On 14.10.1987,  

sub-rules  (8)  and  (9)  were  inserted  in  Rule  24A  of  the  

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short ‘the MC Rules’)  

which deal with renewal of mining leases in Goa, Daman  

and Diu.  The Abolition Act was challenged by the lessees  

before the Bombay High Court in a writ petition.  The High  

Court passed an interim order permitting the lessees to  

carry on mining operations and the mining business in the  

concessions for which renewal applications had been filed  

under Rule 24A of the MC Rules.  Subsequently, the High  

Court  held  in  its  judgment  dated  20.06.1997  that  the  

4

Page 5

Abolition Act was valid but Section 22(i)(a) of the Abolition  

Act would operate prospectively and not retrospectively.  

The concessionaires filed special leave petition against the  

judgment  dated  20.06.1997  before  this  Court.  On  

02.03.1998, this Court passed an interim order permitting  

the  concessionaires  to  carry  on  mining  operations  and  

mining  business  in  the  mining  areas  for  which  renewal  

applications  have been made on the  condition that  the  

lessee pays to the Government dead rent from the date of  

commencement of the Abolition Act.  Subsequently, this  

Court  granted  leave  in  the  special  leave  petition  and  

continued the aforesaid interim order.

The Justice Shah Commission and its report:

4. As  reports  were  received  from  various  State  

Governments  of  widespread  mining  of  iron  ore  and  

manganese ore in contravention of the provisions of the  

MMDR  Act,  the  Forests  (Conservation)  Act  1980,  the  

Environment  (Protection)  Act,  1986 and other  rules and  

guidelines  issued  thereunder,  the  Central  Government  

appointed the Justice Shah Commission under Section 3 of  

the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 by notification dated  

5

Page 6

22.11.2010.  Paras 2 and 3 of the notification, which are  

relevant, are extracted hereinbelow:

“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.

6

Page 7

3. The Commission shall  also recommend remedial  measures  to  prevent  such  mining,  trade,  transportation  and  export  done illegally  or  without  lawful authority.”

The  Justice  Shah  Commission  visited  Goa  and  issued  

notices under Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act,  

1952  calling  for  information  from concerned  authorities  

and  the  lessees  and  submitted  its  interim  report  on  

15.3.2012 to  the Ministry of  Mines,  Union of  India.   On  

7.9.2012, the Justice Shah Commission Report on Goa was  

tabled in Parliament along with an Action Taken Report of  

the  Ministry  of  Mines  and  on  10.9.2012  the  State  

Government of Goa passed an order suspending all mining  

operations in the State of Goa with effect from 11.9.2012.

5. Pursuant to this order of the State Government, on  

11.09.2012 and 12.09.2012 the District Magistrates of the  

State  of  Goa banned transportation  of  iron  ore  in  their  

respective districts and the Director of Mines and Geology  

ordered for verification of mineral ore which was already  

extracted.   On  13.9.2012,  the  Director  of  Mines  and  

Geology, Government of Goa issued Show Cause Notices  

to  40  mining  leases.   On  14.9.2012,  the  Ministry  of  

7

Page 8

Environment  and  Forests  of  the  Union  of  India  also  

directed  that  all  Environmental  Clearances  granted  to  

mines in the State of Goa be kept in abeyance.   

6. On the basis of findings in the report of the Justice  

Shah Commission on illegal mining in the State of Goa,  

the Goa Foundation has filed Writ Petition (C) 435 of 2012  

as Public Interest Litigation praying for directions to the  

Union  of  India  and the  State  of  Goa to  take steps  for  

termination of the mining leases of lessees involved in  

mining in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980,  

the  Mines  and  Minerals (Regulation  and  Development)  

Act,  1957,  the  Mineral  Concessions  Rules,  1960,  the  

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,  the  Water  

(Prevention  &  Control  of  Pollution)  Act,  1974  and  the  

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well  

as  the  Wild  Life  (Protection)  Act,  1972.   The  Goa  

Foundation has prayed that a direction be issued to the  

respondents to prosecute all those who have committed  

offences under the different laws and are involved in the  

pilferage  of  State  revenue  through  illegal  mining  

activities in the State of Goa including the public servants  

8

Page 9

who  have  aided  and  abetted  the  offences.   The  Goa  

Foundation  has  also  sought  for  appointment  of  an  

independent  authority  with  full  powers  to  take control,  

supervise and regulate mining operations in the State of  

Goa  and  to  ensure  the  implementation  of  the  laws.  

Besides, the aforesaid main reliefs, the Goa Foundation  

has also  prayed for  some incidental  and consequential  

reliefs.   On 5.10.2012,  this  Court  issued notice in  Writ  

Petition (Civil)  No. 435 of 2012 to the respondents and  

directed  the  Central  Empowered  Committee  (for  short  

“CEC”) to submit its report on the writ petition and also  

directed that till  further orders, all mining operations in  

the  leases  identified  in  the  report  of  the  Justice  Shah  

Commission  and  transportation  of  iron  ore  and  

manganese ore from those leases, whether lying at the  

mine-head  or  stockyards,  shall  remain  suspended,  as  

recommended  in  the  report  of  the  Justice  Shah  

Commission.   

7. Different mining lessees of the State of Goa and the  

Goa  Mining  Association  also  filed  Writ  Petitions  in  the  

Bombay High Court, Goa Bench for a declaration that the  

9

Page 10

report of the Shah Commission is illegal and for quashing  

the findings in the report of the Justice Shah Commission  

and also for quashing the order dated 10.9.2012 of the  

Government of Goa suspending mining operations in the  

State of Goa and the order dated 14.9.2012 of the Ministry  

of  Environment  and  Forests,  Government  of  India,  

directing  that  the  Environmental  Clearances  granted  to  

the mines in the State of Goa be kept in abeyance.  These  

Writ  Petitions  have  been  transferred  to  this  Court  for  

hearing along with the hearing of Writ Petition (Civil) No.  

435 of 2012 filed by the Goa Foundation.

8. The Writ  Petitions  and the Transferred Cases were  

heard  during  September,  October  and  November,  

2013.   On  11th November,  2013,  an  order  was  

passed by this Court directing that the inventory of  

the  excavated  mineral  ores  lying  in  different  

mines/stockyards/jetties/ports  in  the  State  of  Goa  

made by the Department of  Mines and Geology of  

the Government of Goa be verified and thereafter the  

whole of the inventorised mineral ores be sold by  e-

auction  and  the  sale  proceeds  (less  taxes  and  

10

Page 11

royalty) be retained in separate fixed deposits (lease-

wise) by the State of Goa till the Court delivers the  

judgment  in  these  matters  on  the  legality  of  the  

leases from which the mineral ores were extracted.  

The Court has also directed that this entire process of  

verification of the inventory, e-auction and deposit of  

sale  proceeds  be  monitored  by  a  Monitoring  

Committee appointed by the Court.  By the said order  

dated  11.11.2013,  this  Court  also  constituted  an  

Expert Committee to conduct a macro EIA Study on  

what should be the ceiling of annual  excavation of  

iron ore from the State of Goa considering its iron ore  

resources and its carrying capacity, keeping in mind  

the principles of sustainable development and inter-

generational equity and all other relevant factors. On  

11.11.2013 the case was also reserved for judgment.

Challenge  to  the  Report  of  the  Justice  Shah  Commission:

9. As we have already noticed, in the cases transferred  

from the  Bombay  High  Court  to  this  Court,  the  mining  

lessees have prayed for quashing the report of the Justice  

11

Page 12

Shah  Commission.   Mr.  K.K.  Vengupal,  learned  senior  

counsel appearing for the mining lessees, submitted that  

the  Justice  Shah  Commission  did  not  issue  any  notice  

under Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952  

to the mining lessees giving a reasonable opportunity of  

being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in their  

defence.   He  further  submitted  that  the  Justice  Shah  

Commission  also  did  not  permit  the  mining  lessees  to  

cross examine the witnesses, to address the Commission  

and to be represented by legal  practitioners before the  

Commission contrary to the provisions of Section 8C of the  

Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.  He submitted that even  

otherwise there is gross breach of the principles of natural  

justice and fair play by the Justice Shah Commission and,  

therefore, the report of the Commission was violative of  

Article  14  of  the  Constitution.   He  submitted  that  the  

report of the Justice Shah Commission should, therefore,  

be quashed.  In support of this submission, he relied on  

the decisions of this Court in  Kiran Bedi v.  Committee of  

Inquiry and another [(1989) 1 SCC 494],  State of Bihar v.  

12

Page 13

L.K.  Advani [(2003)  8  SCC  361]  and  Union  of  India v.  

Tulsiram Patel [1985(3) SCC 398].

10. Mr. Mohan Prasaran, learned Solicitor General for the  

Union of India, on the other hand, submitted that as the  

notification dated 22.11.2010 of the Central Government  

appointing the Justice Shah Commission under Section 3  

of  the  Commissions  of  Inquiry  Act,  1952  would  show,  

reports were received from various State Governments of  

widespread  mining  of  iron  ore  and  manganese  ore  in  

contravention of the MMDR Act, the Forest (Conservation)  

Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or  

other Rules and Licenses issued thereunder and for this  

reason,  the  Central  Government  appointed  the  Justice  

Shah Commission for the purpose of making inquiry into  

these matters of  public  importance.   He submitted that  

after  the Justice Shah Commission submitted the report  

pointing out various illegalities, the Union Government has  

kept the environment clearances in abeyance and it will  

take legal action on the basis of its own assessment of the  

facts  and not on the basis  of the facts  as found in  the  

Justice Shah Commission’s report.  Similarly, Mr. Atmaram  

13

Page 14

N.S.  Nadkarni,  the  Advocate  General  appearing  for  the  

State  of  Goa,  submitted  that  after  going  through  the  

report  of  the  Justice  Shah  Commission,  the  State  

Government has suspended all mining and transportation  

of  ores  and  no  legal  action  will  be  taken  against  the  

mining lessees on the basis of the findings in the Justice  

Shah Commission’s report unless due opportunity is given  

to the mining lessees to place their defence against the  

findings of the Justice Shah Commission.   

11. We  find  that  Section  8B  of  the  Commissions  of  

Inquiry Act, 1952 provides that if a person is likely to be  

prejudicially affected by the inquiry, the Commission shall  

give  to  that  person  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  being  

heard and to produce evidence in his defence and Section  

8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 provides that  

every such person will have a right to cross-examine and  

the right to be represented by a legal practitioner before  

the Commission.   As  the State Government of  Goa has  

taken  a  stand  before  us  that  no  action  will  be  taken  

against  the  mining  lessees  only  on  the  basis  of  the  

findings  in  the  report  of  the  Justice  Shah  Commission  

14

Page 15

without making its own assessment of facts and without  

first giving the mining lessees the opportunity of hearing  

and the opportunity to produce evidence in their defence,  

we are not inclined to quash the report of the Justice Shah  

Commission on the ground that the provisions of Sections  

8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and  

the principles of natural justice have not been complied  

with.  At the same time, we cannot also direct prosecution  

of the mining lessees on the basis of the findings in the  

report of the Justice Shah Commission, if  they have not  

been given the opportunity of being heard and to produce  

evidence  in  their  defence  and  not  allowed  the  right  to  

cross-examine and the right to be represented by a legal  

practitioner  before  the  Commission  as  provided  in  

Sections  8B and 8C respectively  of  the Commissions of  

Inquiry Act,  1952.  We will,  however,  examine the legal  

and  environmental  issues  raised  in  the  report  of  the  

Justice Shah Commission and on the basis of our findings  

on these issues consider granting the reliefs prayed for in  

the writ petition filed by Goa Foundation and the reliefs  

15

Page 16

prayed for in the writ petitions filed by the mining lessees,  

which have been transferred to this Court.  

Whether the leases held by the mining lessees have  expired:

12.   According to the Justice Shah Commission report,  

prior to 7th January, 1993, sub-rule (4) of Rule 24A of the  

MC  Rules  provided  that  the  renewal  application  of  the  

lessee is required to be disposed of within six months from  

the  date  of  its  receipt  and  sub  rule  (5)  of  Rule  24A  

provided that if the application is not disposed of within  

stipulated time, the same shall be deemed to have been  

refused.  The Justice Shah Commission has found that the  

applications of several mining leases for renewal were not  

disposed of within the stipulated time and there was no  

provision  in  the  MC  Rules  to  condone  the  delay  and,  

therefore,  these  leases  are  in  contravention  of  the  MC  

Rules  and  are  void  and  have  no  effect  as  provided  in  

Section 19 of the MMDR Act.   

13. The CEC in its report has stated that under Section 4  

of the Abolition Act, the concessions were abolished from  

23rd May, 1987 and treated as deemed leases under the  

16

Page 17

MMDR Act and the period of deemed leases under Section  

5 of the Abolition Act was extended upto six months with  

effect from the date of assent to the Abolition Act (23rd  

May, 1987) i.e. upto 22nd November, 1987.  The CEC has  

further stated that by notifications dated 20th November,  

1987 and 20th May,  1988,  however,  the  Government  of  

Goa allowed extension of six months each (totaling one  

year)  for  making  applications  for  the  first  renewal  of  

deemed mining leases and this one year period expired on  

22nd November, 1988.  The CEC has further stated that as  

per the information provided to the CEC, out of 595 mining  

concessions abolished and converted into deemed mining  

leases under Section 4 of the Abolition Act, as many as  

379 deemed mining lease holders have filed applications  

for  the  first  renewal  of  the  mining  leases  before  22nd  

November,  1988  and  59  such  leases  have  filed  

applications for  the first  renewal  of  the deemed mining  

leases after 22nd November, 1988, i.e.,  beyond the time  

limit permitted under Rule, 24A(8) of the MC Rules.

14. In  reply,  learned  counsel  for  the  lessees  and  Mr.  

Arvind  Datar,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  

17

Page 18

State of Goa, submitted that sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule  

24A of the MC Rules did not apply to the State of Goa.  

They submitted that sub-rules (8) and (9) of Rule 24A of  

the MC Rules apply specifically to the State of Goa and  

sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules provides that an  

application  for  the  first  renewal  of  the  deemed  mining  

lease referred to in Section 4 of the Abolition Act shall be  

made  to  the  State  Government  in  Form  ‘J’  before  the  

period of six months of the mining lease as provided in  

Section 5(1) of the Abolition Act.  They submitted that the  

proviso  to  sub-rule  (8)  of  Rule  24A  of  the  MC  Rules  

conferred power on the State Government to extend time  

for  making  such  application  upto  a  total  period  not  

extending  one  year.   They  submitted  that,  by  two  

notifications, the State Government extended time for a  

period of one year upto 22.11.1988 and within this period  

most of the lessees have applied for the first renewal of  

the deemed mining lease.  Learned counsel for the lessees  

and learned counsel for the State of Goa submitted that  

sub-rule (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules makes it clear  

that if an application for first renewal is made within the  

18

Page 19

time referred to in sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules  

or within the time allowed by the State Government under  

the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, the  

period  of  that  lease  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  

extended by a  further  period  till  the State  Government  

passes orders thereon.   

15. For easy reference, Chapter II containing Sections 4  

and 5 of the Abolition Act is extracted hereinbelow:  

“CHAPTER II

ABOLITION OF MINING CONCESSIONS  AND  DECLARATION  AS  MINING  LEASES  UNDER THE  MINES  AND  MINERALS ACT

4. (1)  Every mining concession specified  in  the First  Schedule shall,  on and from  the  appointed  day,  be  deemed  to  have  been abolished, and shall, with effect from  that day, be deemed to be a mining lease  granted under the Mines and Minerals Act,  and the provisions of that Act shall, save  as otherwise provided in this Act, apply to  such mining lease.

(2)  Every mining concession specified in  the Second Schedule shall,  on and from  the day next after the date of grant of the  said  concession  and  specified  in  the  

19

Page 20

corresponding entry in the eighth column  of the said Schedule, be deemed to have  been abolished, and shall, with effect from  that day, be deemed to be a mining lease  granted under the Mines and Minerals Act,  and the provisions of that Act shall, save  as otherwise provided in this Act, apply to  such mining lease.

(3) If, after the date of assent, the Central  Government  is  satisfied,.  whether  from  any  information  received  by  it  or  otherwise, that there has been any error,  omission or  misdescription in  relation to  the particulars of any mining concession  or  the  name  and  residence  of  any  concession holder specified in the First or  the  Second  Schedule,  it  may,  by  notification,  correct  such  error,  omission  or  misdescription,  and  on  the  issue  of  such notification, the First or the Second  Schedule,  as  the case may be,  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  amended  accordingly.

5.  (1) Where  a  mining  concession  has  been deemed to be a mining lease under  section 4, the concession holder shall, on  and  from  the  day  mentioned  in that  section, be deemed to have become the  holder  of  such  mining  lease  under  the  Mines and Minerals Act in relation to the  mine  to  which  the  mining  concession  relates, subject to the condition that the  period  of  such  lease  shall,  notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  that  Act,  extend  up  to  a  period  of  six  months from the date of assent.

(2)  On  the  expiry  of  the  period  of  any  mining  lease  under  sub-section  (1),  it  may, if so desired by the holder of such  lease and on an application being made  

20

Page 21

by him in accordance with the provisions  of  the  Mines  and  Minerals  Act  and  the  rules  made  thereunder,  be  renewed  on  such terms and conditions, and up to the  maximum  period  for  which,  such  lease  can be renewed under the provisions  of  that Act and the rules made thereunder.”

16. For easy reference, Rule 24A of the MC Rules is also  

extracted hereinbelow:

“24A. Renewal  of  mining  lease. –  (1)  An  application for the renewal of a mining lease  shall  be  made to  the  State  Government  in  Form  J,  at  least  twelve  months  before  the  date  on  which  the  lease  is  due  to  expire,  through such officer or authority as the State  Government may specify in this behalf.

(2) The renewal or renewals of a mining lease  granted in respect of a mineral  specified in  Part ‘A’ and Part ‘B’ of the First Schedule to  the  Act  may  be  granted  by  the  State  Government  with  the  previous  approval  of  the Central Government.;

(3) The renewal or renewals of a mining lease  granted in respect of a mineral not specified  in Part ‘A’ and Part ‘B’ of the First Schedule to  the  Act  may  be  granted  by  the  State  Government.;

Provided  that  before  granting  approval  for  second  or  subsequent  renewal  of  a  mining  lease,  the  State  Government  shall  seek  a  report  from  the  Controller  General,  Indian  Bureau of Mines, as to whether it would be in  the interest of mineral development to grant  the renewal of the mining lease.

21

Page 22

Provided further that in case a report is not  received  from  Controller  General,  Indian  Bureau of Mines in a period of three months  of  receipt  of  the  communication  from  the  State Government, it would be deemed that  the Indian Bureau of  Mines has no adverse  comments  to  offer  regarding  the  grant  of  the   renewal of mining lease.

(4) An application for the renewal of a mining  lease shall be disposed of within a period of  six  months  from  the  date  of  its  receipt.  (Omitted)

(5) If an application is not disposed of within  the period specified in sub-rule (4) it shall be  deemed to have been refused. (Omitted)

(6)  If  an  application  for  the  renewal  of  a  mining lease made within the time referred  to in  sub-rule (1)  is  not disposed of by the  State Government before the date of expiry  of the lease, the period of the lease shall be  deemed to have been extended by a further  period till the State Government passes order  thereon.

(7) Omitted.

(8)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (6), an application  for  the  first  renewal  of  a  mining  lease,  so  declared under the provisions of section 4 of  the Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concession  (Abolition and Declaration as Mining Lease )  Act,1987,  shall  be  made  to  the  State  Government  in  Form J  before  the  expiry  of  the period of mining lease in terms of sub- section  (1)  of  section  5  of  the  said  Act,  through such office or authority as the State  Government may specify in this behalf:

22

Page 23

Provided that the State Government may, for  reasons to be recorded in writing and subject  to such conditions as it  may think fit,  allow  extension  of  time  for  making  of  such  application up to a total period not exceeding  one year.

(9)  If  an  application  for  first  renewal  made  within the time referred to in sub-rule (8) or  within  the  time  allowed  by  the  State  Government  under  the  proviso  to  sub-rule  (8), the period of that lease shall be deemed  to have been extended by a further period till  the State Government passes orders thereon.

(10)  The  State  Government  may  condone  delay in an application for renewal of mining  lease made after the time limit prescribed in  sub-rule  (1)  provided  the  application  has  been made before the expiry of the lease.”

17.  Sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules has been  

inserted by G.S.R. 855(E), dated 14th October, 1987 and  

this sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules provides that  

notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-rule  (1)  and  

sub-rule  (6),  an  application  for  the  first  renewal  of  a  

deemed  mining  lease,  referred  to  in  Section  4  of  the  

Abolition Act, shall be made to the State Government in  

Form  J  before  the  expiry  of  the  six  months  period  of  

deemed mining lease as provided in Section 5 (1) of the  

Abolition Act.  The proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of  

23

Page 24

the MC Rules, however, empowers the State Government  

to  extend  the  time for  making  such  application  upto  a  

total period not extending one year.  In exercise of these  

powers in the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC  

Rules, the State Government of Goa has, in fact, extended  

time  for  making  applications  for  first  renewal  upto  

22.11.1988,  by  two  notifications  dated  20.11.1987  and  

20.05.1988.   Sub-rule (9)  of  Rule  24A of  the MC Rules,  

which  was  also  inserted  by  G.S.R.  855(E),  dated  14th  

October, 1987, reads as follows:

“In  an  application  for  first  renewal  made  within the time referred to in sub-rule (8) or  within  the  time  allowed  by  the  State  Government  under  the  proviso  to  sub-rule  (8), the period of that lease shall be deemed  to  have been extended by a  period of  one  year from the date of expiry of lease or date  of receipt of application,  whichever is  later,  provided that the period of deemed extension  of lease shall end with the date of receipt of  the orders of the State Government thereon,  if such orders are made earlier.”

Sub-rule (9) was substituted by G.S.R. 724(E) dated 27th  

September, 1994 by the existing sub-rule (9) (extracted  

above) to provide that if an application for first renewal is  

made within the time referred to in sub-rule (8) or within  

24

Page 25

the  time  allowed  by  the  State  Government  under  the  

proviso to sub-rule (8), the period of that lease shall be  

deemed to have been extended by a further period till the  

State  Government  passes  orders  thereon.   In  our  

considered  opinion,  the  intention  of  rule-making  

authorities is very clear from sub-rule (9) as was originally  

inserted by G.S.R. 855(E), dated 14th October, 1987 and  

sub-rule  (9)  as  was substituted by G.S.R.  724(E),  dated  

27th September,  1994,  that until  orders were passed by  

the State Government on an application for first renewal  

of a lease filed by a lessee within the time allowed, the  

lease was deemed to have been extended.  

18.  The lessees have contended that they had filed their  

applications by 22.11.1988, i.e. the date up to which the  

State Government had allowed time under the proviso to  

sub-rule  (8)  of  Rule  24A  of  the  MC  Rules.   The  State  

Government  has also  taken the stand that  most  of  the  

applications  for  first  renewal  were  filed  within  the  time  

allowed by the State Government and this stand is also  

supported by the facts found by the CEC.  The result is  

that  most  of  the  mining  leases  in  which  the  State  

25

Page 26

Government has not passed orders are deemed to have  

been extended under sub-rule (9) of Rule 24A of the MC  

Rules.  Hence, the finding in the Justice Shah Commission  

report that the applications for renewal were not disposed  

of  within  the  stipulated  time  and  the  leases  are  in  

contravention of the MC Rules is, thus, not correct.  This  

opinion  of  the  Justice  Shah  Commission,  as  we  have  

noticed, was based on sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 24A of  

the  MC  Rules,  which  were  applicable  generally  to  an  

application for renewal of mining leases, stood excluded to  

the  extent  specific  provisions  have  been  subsequently  

made by the rule-making authorities in sub-rules (8) and  

(9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules in respect of the deemed  

leases in Goa.  

19. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Goa  

Foundation,  however,  submitted  that  sub-section  (2)  of  

Section  8  of  the  MMDR  Act  prior  to  its  amendment  

provided that a mining lease may be renewed for only ten  

years and, therefore, if the deemed mining leases of the  

lessees  expired  on  22.11.1987,  even  if  the  lease  was  

renewed on the application of first renewal made by the  

26

Page 27

lessees in Goa, the period of lease under the first renewal  

would expire on 21.11.1997 and after 21.11.1997, there  

can be no deemed extension.  Alternatively, he submitted  

that  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  8  of  the  MMDR  Act  as  

amended  by  Act  25  of  1994  provided  that  the  mining  

lease  may  be  renewed  for  a  maximum  period  not  

exceeding  twenty  years.   He  submitted  that  as  the  

deemed mining leases expired on 22.11.1987, the lessees  

would be entitled to a renewal for a maximum period of  

twenty years upto 21.11.2007 and after 21.11.2007, the  

lessees would not be entitled to any renewal and hence  

the lessees were not entitled to operate the lease beyond  

21.11.2007.   

20. Learned counsel for the lessees, on the other hand,  

submitted that sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR  

Act  makes  it  clear  that  notwithstanding  anything  

contained in sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act,  

the State Government can authorise renewal of a mining  

lease in respect  of minerals not specified in Part  A and  

Part B of the First Schedule for a further period or periods  

not exceeding twenty years in each case.  They submitted  

27

Page 28

that iron ore is specified in Part C in the First Schedule and  

hence the State Government can authorise renewal of the  

mining lease in respect of iron ore for a period or periods  

not  exceeding  twenty  years  in  each  case.   They  also  

referred to sub-rule (3) of Rule 24A which provided that  

renewal or renewals of a mining lease granted in respect  

of a mineral not specified in Part A and Part B of the First  

Schedule to the MMDR Act may be granted by the State  

Government  provided  that  before  granting  approval  for  

second or subsequent renewal of a mining lease, the State  

Government  shall  seek  a  report  from  the  Controller  

General, Indian Bureau of Mines, as to whether it would be  

in  the  interest  of  mineral  development  to  grant  the  

renewal  of  the  mining  lease.   Learned  counsel  for  the  

lessees submitted that as the application of the lessees for  

renewal of mining leases have not been disposed of by the  

State Government before the date of expiry of lease, the  

period of lease shall be deemed to have been extended by  

a further period till the State Government passes orders  

thereon as provided in sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of the MC  

Rules.  They submitted that it will be clear from sub-rule  

28

Page 29

(6) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules that the intention of rule-

making authorities is that there may not be any hiatus in  

mining,  and  mineral  development  in  the  country  may  

continue without break, without any loss to the economy  

and loss of revenue to the Government.  They cited the  

judgment  of  this  Court  in  State  of  U.P.  &  Ors. v. Lalji   

Tandon (dead) through LRs. [(2004) 1 SCC 1], in which this  

Court  has  held  that  there  is  a  difference  between  an  

extension of lease and renewal of lease and whereas in  

the case of extension of lease it is not necessary to have a  

fresh deed of lease executed, in case of renewal of lease,  

a fresh deed of lease shall have to be executed between  

the parties.  They also cited Tata Iron and Steel Company  

Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. [(1996) 9 SCC 709] in support  

of their argument that under sub-section (3) of Section 8  

of the MMDR Act, the Government can renew the mining  

lease for a further period if it was in the interest of mineral  

development.

21. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the State  

of Goa, submitted that the then State Government of Goa  

allowed  the  working  of  the  mines  from  2007  till  2012  

29

Page 30

based  on  deemed  extension  status  but  it  has  been  

decided by the State Government now in the Goa Mining  

Policy of 2013 that no mine can be allowed on deemed  

extension basis.  The clear stand of the State Government  

of Goa in the resume of arguments filed by the learned  

Advocate  General  Mr.  Nadkarni  is  that  the  deemed  

extension  status  would  not  mean  that  a  mine  can  be  

allowed  to  run  indefinitely  without  a  decision  on  the  

renewal application.     

22. Section 8 of the MMDR Act is extracted hereinbelow:

“8.  Periods for which mining leases may  be granted or renewed

(1) The maximum period for which a mining  lease may be granted shall not exceed thirty  years:

Provided that the minimum period for which  any such mining lease may be granted shall  not be less than twenty years;

(2)  A  mining  lease  may  be  renewed  for  a  period not exceeding twenty years]:

(3)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-section (2), if the State Government is of  opinion  that  in  the  interests  of  mineral  development it is necessary so to do, it may,  for  reasons  to  be  recorded,  authorise  the  renewal  of  a  mining  lease  in  respect  of  minerals not specified in Part A and Part B of  

30

Page 31

the  First  Schedule  for  a  further  period  or  periods not exceeding twenty years in each  case.

(4)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-section(2) and sub-section (3), no mining  lease granted in respect of mineral specified  in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule shall  be  renewed  except  with  the  previous  approval of the Central Government.”

23. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, which  

provides  the  maximum  and  minimum  periods  for  

which a mining lease may be granted will not apply  

to deemed mining leases in Goa because sub-section  

(1) of Section 5 of the Abolition Act provides that the  

period  of  such  deemed  mining  leases  will  extend  

upto  six  months  from  the  date  of  assent  

notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the  MMDR  

Act.   In  other  words,  notwithstanding  anything  

contained  in  sub-section  (1)  of  Section  8  of  the  

MMDR Act, the period of a deemed mining lease in  

Goa was to expire on 22.11.1987 (six months from  

the date of assent).  Under sub-section (2) of Section  

8 of the MMDR Act, a mining lease may be renewed  

for  a  period  not  exceeding  twenty  years.   Sub-

section  (3)  of  Section  8,  however,  provides  that  

31

Page 32

notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-section  

(2), if the State Government is of the opinion that in  

the interest of mineral development, it is necessary  

so  to  do,  it  may  for  reasons  to  be  recorded,  

authorise the renewal of a mining lease in respect of  

minerals not specified in Part A and    Part B of the  

First  Schedule  for  a  further  period  or  periods  not  

exceeding twenty years in each case.  Thus, renewal  

beyond the first renewal for a period of twenty years  

is conditional upon the State Government forming an  

opinion that in the interest of mineral development,  

it is necessary to do so and also conditional upon the  

State  Government  recording  reasons  for  such  

renewal  of  a  mining  lease  in  respect  of  iron  ore  

which is not specified in Part A and Part B of the First  

Schedule.  In  Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v.  

Union of India & Anr. (supra), this Court has held that  

the language of sub-section (3) of Section 8 is quite  

clear  that  ordinarily  a  lease  is  not  to  be  granted  

beyond the time specified in sub-section (2) and only  

if the Government is of the view that it would be in  

32

Page 33

the  interest  of  mineral  development,  it  is  

empowered to renew lease of a lessee for a further  

period after recording sound reasons for  doing so.  

This Court has further held in the aforesaid case that  

this measure has been incorporated in the legislative  

scheme as a safeguard against arbitrariness and the  

letter and spirit of the law must be adhered to in a  

strict manner.   

24.  The MC Rules have been made under Section 13 of  

the  MMDR  Act  by  the  Central  Government  and  

obviously could not  have been made in a manner  

inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.  Sub-rule  

(6) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules provides that if an  

application for the renewal of a mining lease made  

within  the  time  referred  to  in  sub-rule  (1)  is  not  

disposed  of  by  the  State  Government  before  the  

date of expiry of the lease, the period of the lease  

shall be deemed to have been extended by a further  

period  till  the  State  Government  passes  order  

thereon.   This  sub-rule  cannot  apply  to  a renewal  

under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act  

33

Page 34

because the renewal under this provision cannot be  

made  without  express  orders  of  the  State  

Government  recording  reasons  for  renewal  in  the  

interest of mineral development.  In other words, so  

long  as  there  is  a  right  of  renewal  in  the  lessee  

which in the case of a mining lease is for a maximum  

period  of  twenty  years,  the  provision  regarding  

deemed extension of a lease can operate, but if the  

right of renewal of a mining lease is dependent upon  

the State Government forming an opinion that in the  

interest of mineral development it is necessary to do  

so  and  the  State  Government  recording  reasons  

therefor, a provision regarding deemed extension till  

orders are passed by the State Government on the  

application  of  renewal  cannot  apply.   We  are,  

therefore,  of  the  opinion  that  sub-rule  (6)  of  Rule  

24A  of  the  MC Rules  will  apply  to  a  case  of  first  

renewal  under  sub-section  (2)  of  Section  8  of  the  

MMDR Act other than a case covered under sub-rule  

(9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, but will not apply to  

renewal  under  sub-section  (3)  of  Section  8  of  the  

34

Page 35

MMDR Act.  In our view, the deemed mining leases  

of the lessees in Goa expired on 22.11.1987 under  

sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Abolition Act and  

the  maximum  of  20  years  renewal  period  of  the  

deemed mining leases in  Goa as  provided in  sub-

section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act read with  

sub-rules (8)  and (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules  

expired on 22.11.2007.        

Whether dump can be kept beyond the lease area:

25. The report of the Justice Shah Commission states that  

about 2796.24 ha of area have been found to be under  

encroachment by the mining lessees out of which about  

578.42 ha have been found to have been illegally used for  

extraction/removal of iron ore.  The CEC in its report has  

stated that the CEC visited some of the areas stated to be  

under encroachments and a number of lease holders have  

filed  representations  against  the  findings  of  the  Shah  

Commission  stating  that  they  are  not  involved  in  any  

encroachment.  According to the Goa Foundation, this was  

a gross illegality committed by the mining lessees.   

35

Page 36

26.  Mr.  A.D.N.  Rao,  the  Amicus  Curiae,  referred  to  

Section 9 of the MMDR Act to submit that any removal of  

minerals from the leased area can be made by holder of a  

mining lease only on payment of royalty.  He submitted  

that the waste material and overburden, therefore, cannot  

be dumped outside the leased area without payment of  

royalty.  He referred to paragraph 48 of the judgment of  

this  Court  in  Samaj  Parivartana  Samudaya  and  Ors. v.  

State of Karnataka and Ors. [(2013) 8 SCC 154] in which  

this  Court  has  observed  that  dumping  of  mining  waste  

(overburden  dumps)  also  constitutes  mining  operations  

within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the MMDR Act and,  

therefore,  the use of forest land for such activity would  

require  clearances  under  the  Forest  Conservation  Act,  

1980.  He submitted that in the event dumping of mining  

waste outside the leased area is to be done, it can only be  

done  after  clearance  is  obtained  under  the  Forest  

Conservation Act, 1980.

27. The learned counsel appearing for the mining lessees  

submitted  that  the  lessees  have  actually  used  areas  

outside the mining lease which are also owned mostly by  

36

Page 37

the  lessees   for  clearing  the  dump  and  this  was  

permissible  under  the  Mineral  Conservation  and  

Development Rules, 1988 (for short ‘MCD Rules’) and the  

MC Rules.  In particular, they referred to Rule 16 of the  

MCD Rules, which provides for separate stacking of non-

saleable minerals, such as over burden and waste material  

obtained  during  mining  operation,  on  the  ground  

earmarked for the purpose, which should be away from  

the working pit.  They also referred to Rule 64 C of the MC  

Rules which provides that on removal of tailings or rejects  

from the  leased area  for  dumping  outside  leased  area,  

such  tailings  or  rejects  are  not  liable  for  payment  of  

royalty.  The State Government has supported this stand  

of the mining lessees that dumping of the overburden and  

mining  waste  outside  the  lease  area  was  permissible  

under the MC Rules and MCD Rules.  

28. Sections 4(1) and 9(2) of the MMDR Act, Rule 64C of  

the MC Rules and Rule 16 of the MCD Rules are extracted  

below:

“4. Prospecting or mining operations to  be under licence or lease.--(1) No person  shall  undertake  any  reconnaissance,  

37

Page 38

prospecting or mining operations in any area,  except  under  and  in  accordance  with  the  terms  and  conditions  of  a  reconnaissance  permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the  case may be, a mining lease, granted under  this Act and the rules made thereunder:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall  affect  any prospecting or mining operations  undertaken in  any  area  in  accordance with  the  terms  and  conditions  of  a  prospecting  licence  or  mining  lease  granted  before  the  commencement of this Act which is in force  at such commencement.  

Provided  further  that  nothing  in  this  sub- section  shall  apply  to  any  prospecting  operations  undertaken  by  the  Geological  Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines,  the  Atomic  Minerals  Directorate  for  Exploration and Research of the Department  of Atomic Energy of the Central Government,  the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any  State  Government  (by  whatever  name  called),  and  the  Mineral  Exploration  Corporation Limited, a Government Company  within  the  meaning  of  Section  617  of  the  Companies Act, 1956.  

Provided also that nothing in this sub-section  shall  apply  to  any  mining  lease  (whether  called mining lease, mining concession or by  any other name) in force immediately before  the commencement of this Act in the Union  territory of Goa, Daman and Diu.

………………………………………………………….. ”

“9. Royalties  in  respect  of  mining  leases.--  

38

Page 39

(1) ……………………………………………………….

(2) The holder of a mining lease granted on  or after the commencement of this Act shall  pay  royalty  in  respect  of  any  (mineral  removed  or  consumed  by  his  agent,  manager,  employee,  contractor  of  sub- lessee) from the leased area at the rate for  the  time  being  specified  in  the  Second  Schedule in respect of that mineral.

.......................................................................”

“64C. Royalty on tailings or rejects.--On  removal of tailings or rejects from the leased  area  for  dumping  and  not  for  sale  or  consumption,  outside  leased  area  such  tailings  or  rejects  shall  not  be  liable  for  payment of royalty:

Provided that in case so dumped tailings or  rejects are used for sale or consumption on  any  later  date  after  the  date  of  such  dumping, then, such tailings or rejects shall  be liable for payment of royalty.”

“16.  Separate  stacking  of  non-salable  minerals.--(1)  The  overburden  and  waste  material  obtained  during  mining  operations  shall  not be allowed to be mixed with non- salable  or  sub-grade  minerals/ores.   They  shall  be dumped and stacked separately on  the ground earmarked for the purpose.

(2)  The  ground  selected  for  dumping  of  overburden, waste material, the sub-grade or  non-salable ores/minerals shall be away from  working pit.  It shall be proved for absence or  presence  of  underlying  mineral  deposits  before it is brought into use for dumping.

39

Page 40

(3)  Before  starting  mining  operations,  the  ultimate size of the pit shall  be determined  and the dumping ground shall be so selected  that the dumping is not carried out within the  limits of the ultimate size of the pit except in  cases  where  concurrent  backfilling  is  proposed.”

29.  Under Section 4 of the MMDR Act, a person who  

holds a mining lease granted under the MMDR Act  

and the Rules made thereunder is entitled to carry  

on mining operations in accordance with the terms  

of the lease in the leased area and may carry on all  

other  activities  connected  with  mining  within  the  

leased area.   Rule 31 of the MC Rules prescribes  

that the lease deed will be in Form K or in a form  

near thereto. Part I of Form K delineates the area of  

the  lease  and  Part  II  of  Form  K  authorizes  the  

activities  that  can  be  done  by  the  lessee  in  the  

leased area.  Thus, a holder of a mining lease does  

not have any right to dump any reject, tailings or  

waste in  any area outside the leased area of  the  

mining  lease  on  the  strength  of  a  mining  lease  

granted under the MMDR Act and the Rules made  

thereunder.  Such area outside the leased area of  

40

Page 41

the mining lease may belong to the State or may  

belong to any private person, but if the mining lease  

does not confer any right whatsoever on the holder  

of a mining lease to dump any mining waste outside  

the  leased  area,  he  will  have  no  legal  right  

whatsoever  to  remove  his  dump,  overburden,  

tailings or rejects and keep the same in such area  

outside the leased area.  In other words, dumping of  

any waste materials, tailings and rejects outside the  

leased area would be without a valid authorization  

under the lease-deed.

30. Moreover, Section 9(2) of the MMDR Act makes the  

holder  of  a  mining  lease  granted on  or  after  the  

commencement of the Act liable to pay royalty in  

respect  of  any  mineral  removed  or  consumed by  

him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor  

or  sub-lessee  from  the  leased  area.   Thus,  the  

moment the mineral is removed or consumed from  

the leased area, the holder of a mining lease has to  

pay royalty.  By virtue of Section 9 of the MMDR Act,  

tailings  and  rejects  excavated  during  mining  

41

Page 42

operations  being  minerals  will  also  be  exigible  to  

royalty  the  moment  they  are  removed  from  the  

leased area.

31. Rule 64C of the MC Rules states that on removal of  

tailings or rejects from the leased area for dumping  

and  not  for  sale  or  consumption,  outside  leased  

area such tailings or rejects shall not be liable for  

payment  of  royalty.   Rule  64C  of  the  MC  Rules,  

therefore, exempts the removal of tailings or rejects  

from the leased area for  the purpose of  dumping  

and not for the purpose of sale or consumption from  

the levy of royalty.  Rule 64C of the MC Rules does  

not authorise dumping of tailings or rejects in any  

area outside the leased area.  This Court has held in  

The Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Their Workmen,  

etc. [AIR 1960 SC 12] that ‘if  a rule goes beyond  

what the section contemplates, the rule must yield  

to the statute’.  In our view, if Rule 64C of the MC  

Rules  suggests  that  tailings  or  rejects  can  be  

dumped outside the leased area, it must give way  

to  Section  4  of  the  MMDR  Act,  which  does  not  

42

Page 43

authorise dumping of  minerals  outside the leased  

area and must give way to Section 9 of the MMDR  

Act which does not authorise removal of minerals  

outside the leased area without payment of royalty.  

We, therefore,  hold that dump cannot be kept by  

the lessees beyond the leased area.   

32. Rule  16  of  the  MCD  Rules  provides  that  the  

overburden  and  waste  material  obtained  during  mining  

operations shall be dumped and stacked separately on the  

ground  earmarked  for  the  purpose  and  the  ground  

selected for dumping of overburden, waste material shall  

be away from working pit.  There is nothing in sub-rules  

(1),  (2)  and  (3)  of  Rule  16  of  the  MCD  Rules,  which  

provides that such overburden or waste material obtained  

from mining operations shall be kept  ‘outside the leased  

area’.  On the other hand, clause (7) of Part II of Form-K  

provides as follows:

“Liberty and power to enter upon and use  a sufficient part of the surface of the said  lands for the purpose of stacking, heaping,  storing or depositing therein any produce  of the mines or works carried on and any  tools, equipment, earth and materials and  substances  dug  or  raised  under  the  

43

Page 44

liberties  and  powers  mentioned  in  this  part.”    

The expression ‘said lands’ in clause (7) of Part II of Form-

K quoted above refers to the area of the lease in Part I of  

Form K  and,  therefore,  is  confined  to  the  leased  area.  

Rule 16 of the MCD Rules, therefore, cannot be read to  

permit  dumping  of  overburden  and  waste  materials  

obtained from mining operations outside the leased area.  

33. Learned counsel for the lessees, however, submitted  

that many of these areas in which they have dumped the  

overburdens, tailings and rejects are lands owned by them  

and by virtue of their ownership right they could dump the  

mining  waste  on  their  own  lands.   This  contention  of  

learned counsel appearing for the lessees loses sight of  

the  fact  that  most  of  these  lands  are  located  in  forest  

areas  where  non-forest  activity,  such  as  mining,  is  

prohibited under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act,  

1980  without  the  prior  permission  of  the  Central  

Government.  Moreover, the notification issued under sub-

rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules,  

1986 requiring prior environmental clearance covers the  

44

Page 45

activity of mining.  Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 empowers the  

Central Government to impose prohibition or restrictions  

on  the  location  of  an  industry  or  the  carrying  on  of  

processes and operations in  an area for  the purpose of  

protecting the environment.  Inasmuch as the activity of  

dumping mineral  wastes will  pollute the environment,  it  

will come within the meaning of activity of mining included  

in the Schedule to the notification issued under sub-rule  

(3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.  

Thus, for dumping of mining waste on a private land, a  

prior  clearance  of  the  Central  Government  under  the  

notification  issued  under  sub-rule  (3)  of  Rule  5  of  the  

Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 would be necessary.  

We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention of  

learned counsel for the lessees that they can dump mining  

waste outside the leased area.

Within  what  distance  from  the  boundaries  of  National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, is mining  not permissible in the State of Goa:   

34. The Justice Shah Commission has stated in its report  

that the National Board for Wild Life (NBWL) adopted “The  

Wild Life Conservation Strategy–2002” and took a decision  

45

Page 46

in its meeting held on 21.1.2002 under the Chairmanship  

of Prime Minister  to notify the areas within 10 kms. from  

the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries as eco-

fragile  zones  under  section  3(v)  of  the  Environment  

(Protection) Act and Rule 5, Sub-rule (1)(viii) & (x) of the  

Environment (Protection) Rules and this decision has been  

communicated on 5.2.2002 to the Chief Wild Life Warden,  

Government of Goa and the State Government has been  

requested to  list  out  such  areas  and furnish  a  detailed  

proposal for their notification as eco–sensitive areas under  

the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.  The Justice Shah  

Commission has found that this has not been done till date  

but the Government of Goa has allowed mines to operate.  

In this context, the Justice Shah Commission Report has  

referred to  the order  dated 04.12.2006 of  this  Court  in  

Writ  Petition  No.460/2004  (Goa  Foundation  v.  Union  of  

India) by which this Court had directed the MoEF to refer  

to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild  

Life,  under  Sections  5B  and  5C  (2)  of  the  Wild  Life  

(Protection)  Act,  the  cases  in  which  environmental  

clearance has already been granted where activities are  

46

Page 47

within 10 kms. zone.  According to the report of the Justice  

Shah  Commission,  in  spite  of  the  clear  provisions  of  

Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986  

and the EIA Notifications, conferring the jurisdiction, power  

and authority on the Central Government (MoEF) to grant  

or  refuse  prior  environment  clearance  for  any  iron  ore  

mining  activity  within  10  kms.  of  National  Parks,  

Sanctuaries and Protected Areas and despite provisions in  

Section  5C(2)(b)  of  the  Wild  Life  (Protection)  Act,  1972  

putting a  restriction on mining activities  inside National  

Parks, Sanctuaries and other Protected and eco–sensitive  

Areas,  mining  activities  have  been  permitted  within  10  

kms.  and  inside  the  National  Parks,  Sanctuaries  and  

Protected  Areas.   The  report  of  the  Justice  Shah  

Commission further states that out of the environmental  

clearances, the clearances with regard to 74 mining leases  

should have been placed before the Standing Committee  

of the National Board for Wildlife in accordance with the  

order dated 04.12.2006 of this Court.  The report of the  

Justice  Shah  Commission  further  states  that  there  has  

been  a  total  failure  on  the  part  of  the  MoEF  in  not  

47

Page 48

considering  this  issue  while  granting  the  environmental  

clearances.

35.  The Justice Shah Commission in its report has further  

stated that in the order dated 04.08.2006 of this Court in  

T.N.  Godavarman Thirumulpad v.  Union of  India & Ors.,  

this  Court  has  taken  a  view  that  1  km.  from  the  

boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries would be a  

safety zone, subject to the orders that may be made in IA  

No.1000  regarding  Jamua  Ramgarh  Sanctuary  and  the  

State will not grant any Temporary Working Permit (TWP)  

in  these  safety  zones  comprising  1  km.  from  the  

boundaries  of  National  Parks  and  Sanctuaries  and  yet  

some of the mines within 1 km. from the boundaries of  

National Parks and Sanctuaries have been allowed in the  

State of Goa.

36. The CEC in its report is of the view that had the MoEF  

implemented  this  Court’s  orders  dated  14.02.2000  and  

04.12.2006,  the  unregulated  and  environmentally  

unsustainable manner in which mining has taken place in  

Goa would have been avoided.  The CEC has suggested  

that  all  environmental  clearances  granted  for  mining  

48

Page 49

leases  located  upto  a  distance  of  10  kms.  from  the  

boundaries  of  National  Parks  and  Wildlife  Sanctuaries  

should  be  directed  to  be  kept  in  abeyance  and  the  

environmental  clearances  should  be  directed  to  be  

considered  by  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  National  

Board  for  Wildlife  in  accordance with  this  Court’s  order  

dated  04.12.2006  and  the  Additional  Principal  Chief  

Conservator of Forests, Regional Office, MoEF, Bangalore,  

should be directed to verify, after examining the EIA/EMP  

reports  and  other  relevant  details,  whether  the  mining  

operations will  have adverse impact on the flora,  fauna  

and  wildlife  habitat  and  whether  the  distance  of  the  

National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries and that the status of  

the  ‘forest’  have  been  correctly  stated  in  the  

EC/application  for  taking  a  decision  regarding  EC’s  and  

only  after  considering  the  recommendations  of  the  

Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife and  

the report of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of  

Forests  (Central)  and  other  relevant  information/details,  

this Court may take a decision.   Mr.  Prashant Bhushan,  

learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  Goa  Foundation,  

49

Page 50

submitted that there should be no mining activity within  

any National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries or within 10 kms.  

from  the  boundaries  of  National  Parks  and  Wildlife  

Sanctuaries so that the flora, fauna and wildlife habitat of  

National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries are protected.   

37. Learned counsel for the lessees, on the other hand,  

stated that so far as the State of Goa is concerned, on the  

one  side,  there  is  a  coastal  regulation  zone  in  which  

mining is not permitted and, on the other side,  are the  

National  Parks  and  Wildlife  Sanctuaries  in  which  again  

mining  is  not  permitted  and  as  a  consequence  a  very  

small strip of land is available for mining.  They submitted  

that there is no basis for presuming that an area outside  

the  limits  of  a  National  Park  or  a  Wildlife  Sanctuary  is  

required  to  be  maintained  as  a  buffer  zone.   They  

submitted  that  by  the  order  dated  04.12.2006  of  this  

Court  passed  in  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.460  of  2004,  this  

Court did not finally fix the buffer zone of 10 kms. from the  

boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, but  

granted a last opportunity to the States to submit their  

recommendations  for  eco-sensitive  zone  and  that  the  

50

Page 51

issue is still pending in I.A. No.1000 in Writ Petition 202 of  

1995 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India &  

Ors.   They  further  argued  that  by  the  order  dated  

04.08.2006, this Court had only directed that no mining  

would be permitted by Temporary Working Permits within  

1 km. from the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries and  

by  the  said  order,  absolute  ban has  not  been imposed  

against mining even within 1 km. from the boundaries of  

National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.  They argued that  

for declaration of eco-sensitive zone, a notification under  

Section  3  of  the  Environment  (Protect)  Act,  1986  is  

mandatory  and  till  date  no  such  notification  has  been  

issued for the State of Goa delineating any eco-sensitive  

zone  and  in  the  absence  of  such  a  notification  mining  

activities cannot be prohibited beyond the boundaries of a  

national park/wildlife sanctuary.  

38 Mr.  Nadkarni,  learned  Advocate  General  appearing  

for the State of Goa, submitted that presently the State of  

Goa is not permitting mining inside any National Park or  

Wildlife Sanctuary.  He submitted that each of the seven  

wildlife sanctuaries in the State of Goa have got revenue  

51

Page 52

villages  and  local  habitation  of  people  inside  the  

sanctuaries and before notifying the buffer zone around a  

wildlife sanctuary the consequences of the restrictions of  

the buffer zone on the local population and on the local  

development have to be weighed.  He submitted that the  

State Government is of the considered opinion that while  

evolving  a  conservation  strategy,  the  following  peculiar  

local  constraints  in  the  State  of  Goa  have  to  be  

considered:

(i) The State of Goa is the 3rd smallest State  in the Union; with a total geographical are of  only 3,702 square metres; and out of that,  an  area  of  1,440  square  metres  is  under  ‘Forest’ (protected/reserved/private) which is  almost about 38% of the total geographical  area;

(ii) Out of the said area under ‘Forest’ nearly  62%  i.e.  75.35  square  metres  has  been  declared as ‘National Park’, and/or ‘Wildlife  Sanctuary’;

(iii) An area of approximately or more than  70 square kilometres falls under the ‘Coastal  Regulation  Zone’  (CRZ).   Indeed,  the  CRZ  runs into 106 kms., of the Coastal Belt of the  State of Goa;

(iv) In fact, the total land mass available to  the  State  of  Goa,  free  from  various  restrictions,  would  further  be  reduced  by  196.80 square kilometers, i.e. up to 5.32%,  

52

Page 53

on account of Rivers, Lakes and other Water  Bodies;

(v) Indeed, approximately 40% of the land is  under agriculture which the Government has  decided  not  to  be  diverted  under  any  circumstances;   

(vi) Further, the State Government has also  directed  that  no  ‘Forest  Land’  is  to  be  diverted for any mining purpose.

He submitted that  considering all  these constraints,  the  

State Government has recommended that an area up to 1  

km.  from  the  boundaries  of  National  Parks/Wildlife  

Sanctuaries should be treated as safety zones but even in  

these safety zones mining activity should be prohibited in  

a phased manner in 5 to 10 years.   

39.  Mr.  Mohan  Parasaran,  learned  Solicitor  General,  

submitted that the  Principal Chief Conservator of Forests  

and Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of Goa, vide his  

letter  dated 02.05.2013 has submitted six  proposals  for  

declaration  of  eco-sensitive  zones  around  six  protected  

areas  in  the  State  of  Goa  (National  Parks/Wildlife  

Sanctuaries)  and  the  proposals  were  referred  to  a  

Committee  constituted  under  the  Chairmanship  of  Dr.  

53

Page 54

Rajesh Gopal, Additional Director General of Forests and  

Member  Secretary  of  National  Tiger  Conservation  

Authority-Chairman,  with  the  following  Terms  of  

Reference:

(i)  The  Committee  will  undertake  a  site  specific  site  survey  of  all  six  protected  areas in Goa, with reference to studying  the  topography  and  report  on  the  existing natural  boundaries  around that  is  outside  each  protected  area.  Such  boundaries could include inter alia rivers,  hills etc.

(ii) The Committee will draw up a definition of  what could constitute a credible natural  boundary,  always  keeping  in  mind  that  the object is  to protect the flora,  fauna  and  biodiversity  in  the  PA  from  biotic  pressure.

(iii)  The Committee will  submit its  views on  whether any of the natural boundaries of  the  PAs  in  Goa  could  be  an  effective  boundary of a robust Eco-Sensitive Zone  around the P.A.   

He submitted that the Committee has submitted its report  

on 18.10.2013 and the report has been considered by the  

Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests  and  by  office  

memorandum  dated  24.10.2013,  the  Ministry  of  

Environment  and  Forests  has  not  accepted  the  

recommendation  of  the  Government  of  Goa  regarding  

54

Page 55

buffer zone and instead accepted the recommendation of  

the Committee to define the eco-sensitive zones in  site  

specific  manner subject to the relevant Court orders on  

the  subject  and  that  a  draft  notification  defining  eco-

sensitive  zones  around each of  the  six  protected  areas  

would be issued for stakeholder consultations.

40. We  have  considered  the  submissions  of  learned  

counsel for the parties and we find that presently no  

mining  operations  are  being  carried  on  inside  any  

National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, and the State of  

Goa  has  taken  a  stand  before  us  that  it  will  not  

permit  any  mining  operations  inside  any  National  

Park or Wildlife Sanctuary.  Hence, the only question  

that we have to decide is whether mining could have  

been permitted or could be permitted within a certain  

distance from the boundaries of the National Park or  

Wildlife Sanctuary in the State of Goa.   

41.  This Court in exercise of its power under Article 32 of  

the  Constitution  can  direct  the  State  to  prohibit  

mining activities  in  an area adjacent  to  a  National  

Park  or  a  Wildlife  Sanctuary  for  the  purpose  of  

55

Page 56

protecting the flora, fauna and wildlife habitat of the  

National  Park/Wildlife  Sanctuary  because  these  

constitute part of the natural environment necessary  

for healthy life of persons living in the State of Goa.  

The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is  

a guarantee against the State and for enforcing this  

fundamental right of persons the State, which alone  

has  a  right  to  grant  mining  leases  of  the  mines  

located inside the State, can be directed by the Court  

by  an  appropriate  writ  or  direction  not  to  grant  

mining  leases  or  not  to  allow  mining  that  will  be  

violative under Article 21 of the Constitution.  In Re:  

Construction  of  Park  at  NOIDA  near  Okhla  Bird   

Sanctuary [(2011) 1 SCC 744] a three-Judge Bench  

(Forest Bench) of this Court has observed:

“…… Environment is one of the facets of the  right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of  the Constitution.  Environment is,  therefore,  a matter directly under the Constitution and  if the Court perceives any project or activity  as harmful or injurious to the environment it  would feel obliged to step in. ….”

Thus, the submissions of learned counsel for the lessees  

that until  a notification is issued under the Environment  

56

Page 57

(Protection)  Act,  1986  and  the  Rules  made  thereunder  

prohibiting  mining  activities  in  an  area  outside  the  

boundaries  of  a  National  Park/Wildlife  Sanctuary,  no  

mining can be prohibited by this Court is misconceived.

42. We may now examine whether this Court has by the  

orders passed on 04.08.2006 and 04.12.2006, prohibited  

mining  activities  around  National  Parks  or  Wildlife  

Sanctuaries.  When we read the order of this Court passed  

on 04.08.2006 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union  

of India & Ors., we find that the Court while considering  

the question of grant of Temporary Working Permits for  

mining activities in National Parks, Sanctuaries and forest  

areas, directed that Temporary Working Permits shall be  

granted only where the conditions stipulated in the said  

order are satisfied.  Condition Nos. (ii) and (iii) stipulated  

in the order dated 04.08.2006 are extracted hereinbelow:

“(ii)  The  mine  is  not  located  inside  any  National  Park/Sanctuary  notified  under  Section  18,  26-A  or  35  of  the  Wildlife  (Protection) Act, 1972;

(iii)  The  grant  of  the  T.W.P.  would  not  result  in  any  mining  activity  within  the  safety zone around such areas referred to  in (ii) above, (as an interim measure, one  kilometre safety zone shall be maintained  

57

Page 58

subject to the orders that may be made in  I.A.  No.1000  regarding  Jamua  Ramgarh  Sanctuary);’”

It would, thus, be clear that this Court was of the opinion  

that grant of Temporary Working Permits should not result  

in any mining activities within the safety zones around a  

National  Park  or  Wildlife  Sanctuary  and  as  an  interim  

measure, one kilometer safety zone was to be maintained  

subject to the orders that may be made in I.A. No.1000 in  

Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary.  This order dated 04.08.2006  

has not been varied subsequently nor any orders made in  

I.A.No. 1000 regarding Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary saying  

that  Temporary  Working  Permits  can  be  granted  within  

one  kilometer  safety  zone  beyond  the  boundaries  of  a  

National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary.  The result is that the  

order passed by this Court saying that there will  be no  

mining activity within one kilometer  safety zone around  

National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary has to be enforced and  

there can be no mining activities within this area of one  

kilometer  from  the  boundaries  of  National  Parks  and  

Wildlife Sanctuaries in the State of Goa.    

58

Page 59

43. When, however, we read the order dated 4.12.2006  

of  this  Court  in  Writ  Petition  (C)  No.460  of  2004  (Goa  

Foundation v. Union of India), we find that the Court has  

not  prohibited  any  mining  activity  within  10  kilometer  

distance  from  the  boundaries  of  the  National  Parks  or  

Wildlife  Sanctuaries.   The  relevant  portion  of  the  order  

dated 04.12.2006 is quoted hereinbelow:

“The  Ministry  is  directed  to  give  a  final  opportunity  to  all  States/Union Territories  to  respond  to  its  letter  dated  27th May,  2005.  The State of Goa also is permitted  to given appropriate proposal in addition to  what is said to have already been sent to  the  Central  Government.   The  Communication  sent  to  the  States/Union  Territories  shall  make it  clear  that  if  the  proposals are not sent even now within a  period  of  four  weeks  of  receipt  of  the  communication  from  the  Ministry,  this  Court may have to consider passing orders  for  implementation  of  the  decision  that  was taken on 21st January, 2002, namely,  notification of the areas within 10 km. of  the  boundaries  of  the  sanctuaries  and  national parks as eco-sensitive areas with  a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and  environment  and  having  regard  to  the  precautionary  principles.   If  the  State/Union Territories now fail to respond,  they  would  do  so  at  their  own  risk  and  peril.

The MoEF would also refer to the Standing  Committee  of  the  National  Board  for  Wildlife, under sections 5 (b) and 5 (c) (ii)  

59

Page 60

of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the cases  where environment clearance has already  been  granted  where  activities  are  within  10 km. zone.”

It  will  be  clear  from the  order  dated  4.12.2006  of  this  

Court  that  this  Court  has  not  passed  any  orders  for  

implementation  of  the  decision  taken  on  21st January,  

2002 to notify areas within 10 kms. of the boundaries of  

National  Parks  or  Wildlife  Sanctuaries  as  eco  sensitive  

areas  with  a  view  to  conserve  the  forest,  wildlife  and  

environment.  By the order dated 04.12.2006 of this Court,  

however,  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forest,  

Government  of  India,  was  directed  to  give  a  final  

opportunity  to  all  States/Union Territories  to  respond to  

the proposal and also to refer to the Standing Committee  

of  the  National  Board  for  Wildlife  the  cases  in  which  

environment  clearance  has  already  been  granted  in  

respect  of  activities  within  the  10  kms.  zone  from  the  

boundaries of the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks.  

There is,  therefore, no direction, interim or final,  of this  

Court prohibiting mining activities within 10 kms. of the  

boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries.

60

Page 61

44. Apart from the powers of the Court to give a direction  

prohibiting mining activities up to a certain distance from  

the boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries,  

the Central Government has powers under Rule 5 of the  

Environment Protection Rules, 1986 to prohibit carrying on  

of mining operations in areas which are proximate to a  

Wildlife  Sanctuary  or  a  National  Park.   Rule  5  of  the  

Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 is extracted herein  

under:

“5. Prohibitions and restrictions on the  location  of  industries  and the carrying  on processes and operations in different  areas (1)  The  Central  government  may  take  into  consideration  the  following  factors  while  prohibiting  or  restricting  the  location  of  industries and carrying on of processes and  operations in different areas-

(i) Standards for quality of environment in its  various aspects laid down for an area.

(ii)  The  maximum  allowable  limits  of  concentration  of  various  environmental  pollutants (including noise) [or an area.

(iii)  The  likely  emission  or  discharge  of  environmental  pollutants  from  an  industry,  process  or  operation  proposed  to  be  prohibited or restricted.

(iv) The topographic and climatic features of  an area.

61

Page 62

(v) The biological diversity of the area which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Central  Government  needs to be preserved.

(vi) Environmentally compatible land use.

(vii) Net adverse environmental impact likely  to  be  caused  by  an  industry,  process  or  operation  proposed  to  be  prohibited  or  restricted.

(viii) Proximity to a protected area under the  Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites  and  Remains  Act,  1958  or  a  sanctuary,  National  Park,  game reserve or  closed area  notified  as  such  under  the  Wild  Life  (Protection)  Act,  1972  or  places  protected  under  any  treaty,  agreement  or  convention  with  any  other  country  or  countries  or  in  pursuance  of  any  decision  made  in  any  international confcrcnce1 association or other  body.

(ix) Proximity to human settlements. (x) Any other factor as may be considered by  the Central Government to be relevant to the  protection of the environment in an area.

(2)  While  prohibiting  or  restricting  the  location  of  industries  and  carrying  on  of  processes  and  operations  in  an  area,  the  Central  Government  shall  follow  the  procedure hereinafter laid down.

(3)  (a)  Whenever  it  appears  to  the  Central  Government  that  it  is  expedient  to  impose  prohibition or restrictions on the locations Of  an industry or the carrying on of processes  and  operations  in  an  area,  it  may  by  notification in the Official Gazette and in such  other  manner  as  the  Central  government  

62

Page 63

may deem necessary from time to time, give  notice of its intention to do so.

(b)  Every notification under  clause (a)  shall  give  a  brief  description  of  the  area,  the  industries, operations, processes in that area  about  which  such  notification  pertains  and  also specify the reasons for the imposition of  prohibition or restrictions on the locations of  the industries and carrying on of process or  operations in that area.

(c)  Any  person  interested  in  filing  an  objection against the imposition of prohibition  or restrictions on carrying on of processes or  operations as notified under clause (a) may  do so in writing to the Central  Government  within sixty days from the date of publication  of the notification in the Official Gazette.

(d)  The  Central  Government  shall  within  a  period of one hundred and twenty days from  the date of publication of the notification in  the  Official  Gazette  consider  all  the  objections received against such notification  and may within one hundred and eighty days  from  such  day  of  publication]  impose  prohibition or restrictions on location of such  industries and the carrying on of any process  or operation in an area.

(4)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-rule  (3),  whenever  it  appears  to  the  Central  Government  that  it  is  in  public  interest  to  do so,  it  may dispense with the  requirement of notice under clause (a) of sub- rule (3).”   

45.   Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 lists the number of factors,  

which  the  Central  Government  has  to  take  into  

63

Page 64

consideration while prohibiting or restricting the carrying  

on of processes and operations in different areas.  Sub-

rule  (2)  of  Rule  5  provides  that  before  prohibiting  the  

processes  and  operations  in  the  area  the  Central  

Government has to follow the procedure laid down in sub-

rule (3).  The procedure in sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the  

Environment  (Protection)  Rules,  1986  includes  giving  

notice  of  the  intention  of  the  Central  Government  to  

prohibit the carrying on of processes and operations in the  

reserved  area,  giving  brief  description  of  the  area,  the  

operations and processes in  that  area relating to which  

the notification pertains and also specifying the reasons  

for the imposition of the prohibition on carrying on of the  

processes or operations in that area, and an opportunity  

to  persons  interested  in  filing  an  objection  against  the  

imposition of such prohibition on carrying on of processes  

or  operations  by  the  Central  Government.   These  

procedural checks have been made in Rule 5 because a  

notification issued by the Central Government prohibiting  

an operation or a process will have serious consequences  

on the rights of different persons.  For example, persons  

64

Page 65

who are carrying on the process or operation and those  

who are directly or indirectly employed in the process or  

the operation may be affected by the proposed prohibition  

of  the  process  or  the  operation  in  the  entire  area.  

Therefore until the Central Government takes into account  

various  factors  mentioned  in  sub-rule  (1),  follows  the  

procedure  laid  down  in  sub-rule  (3)  and  issues  a  

notification under Rule 5 prohibiting mining operations in a  

certain  area,  there  can  be  no  prohibition  under  law  to  

carry on mining activity beyond 1 km. of the boundaries of  

National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries.

46. In  fact,  we  find  that  the  process  of  issuing  a  

notification  under  Rule  5  of  the  Environmental  

Protection Rules, 1986 prohibiting mining activities in  

eco-sensitive  zones  around  the  National  Parks  or  

Wildlife Sanctuaries in the State of Goa has now been  

initiated.  The Government of Goa  vide letter  dated  

02.05.2013 submitted the following six proposals for  

declaration of eco- sensitive zones around protected  

areas in the State of Goa to the Ministry: (i) Cotigao  

65

Page 66

Wildlife Sanctuaries; (ii) Netravali Wildlife Sanctuary;  

(iii)  Bhagwan  Mahaveer  Wildlife  Sanctuary  and  

Bhagwan Mahaveer National Park; (iv) Madei Wildlife  

Sanctuary; (v) Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary; and (vi) Dr.  

Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary.  These six proposals were  

referred  to  a  Committee  constituted  under  the  

Chairmanship of Dr. Rajesh Gopal, Additional Director  

General of Forests and Member Secretary of National  

Tiger Conservation Authority, with specified terms of  

reference and the Committee gave its findings and  

the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government  

of India by the Office Memorandum dated 24.10.2013  

have  accepted  the  findings  of  the  Committee  and  

rejected the proposals of the Government of Goa.  It  

is  also  stated  in  the  Office  Memorandum  dated  

24.10.2013  of  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and  

Forests, Government of India that a draft notification  

defining Eco-Sensitive Zones around each protected  

area  is  being  issued  for  stakeholder  consultations.  

This notification will have to be issued under sub-rule  

(3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules,  

66

Page 67

1986, and after objections are received, the Central  

Government  will  have  to  consider  the  same  and  

thereafter take the decision regarding imposition of  

prohibition of  mining activities in  the eco sensitive  

areas within the period stipulated in sub-rule 3(b) of  

Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.  

At  this  stage,  we  can  only  direct  the  Ministry  of  

Environment and Forests to follow the procedure and  

issue  the  notification  of  eco  sensitive  zones  under  

Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules,  1986  

within six months.   

Whether there has been a violation of Rules 37 and  38 of  the MC Rules by the mining lessees in  the  State of Goa:

47.   The Justice Shah Commission has found in its report  

that  in  the  State  of  Goa,  16  

companies/firms/individuals  are carrying out  mining  

operations under different leases granted to them as  

a single unit as if the leases are amalgamated.  The  

Shah Commission has referred to Rule 38 of the MC  

Rules  which  provides  that  the  State  Government  

may, in the interest of mineral development and with  

67

Page 68

reasons  to  be  recorded  in  writing,  permit  

amalgamation of two or more adjoining leases held  

by a lessee provided that the period of amalgamated  

leases  shall  be  co-terminus  with  the  lease  whose  

period will expire first.  The Justice Shah Commission  

is of the opinion that as amalgamation of two leases  

can only be permitted by the State Government for  

reasons  to  be  recorded  in  writing,   and  no  such  

permission  has  been  taken  from  the  State  

Government for the amalgamation of different leases  

as  a  single  unit,  the  lessees  who  are  operating  

different leases as a single unit have violated Rule 38  

of the MC Rules.  

48.  The CEC in its report, however, has not stated about  

any  violation  of  Rule  38 of  the  MC Rules  and has  

instead stated that Rule 37 of the MC Rules which  

provides  that  the  lessee  shall  not,  without  the  

previous consent in writing of the State Government  

assign,  sublet,  mortgage,  or  in  any  other  manner,  

transfer  the  mining  lease,  or  any  right,  title  or  

68

Page 69

interest  therein,  has  been  violated  by  several  

lessees.  The CEC has reported that there are several  

complaints  received by the  State  Government  that  

the leases have been operated by the persons other  

than the lessees.  The CEC has observed in its report  

that  Rule  37  itself  provides  that  in  such  cases  of  

violation  of  Rule  37,  the  State  Government  may  

determine  the  mining  lease,  but  the  State  

Government  has  taken  no  action  and  has  taken  a  

stand that working of the mining leases by a person  

other  than  lease  holder  is  a  prevailing  mining  

practice in Goa and these facts are in the knowledge  

of the Government.  Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned  

counsel for the Goa Foundation, submitted that in all  

these cases the violation should be identified by a  

Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Goa, and  

those lessees who have been found to have violated  

Rule  37  of  the  MC  Rules,  should  be  penalized  by  

determination of the leases.

49.  Rules  37  and  38  of  the  MC  Rules  are  extracted  

hereinbelow:

69

Page 70

“37. Transfer of lease. –  (1)  The lessee  shall not, without the previous consent in  writing of the State Government and in the  case  of  mining  lease  in  respect  of  any  mineral specified in [Part ‘A’ and Part ‘B’  of]  the First Schedule to the Act,  without  the  previous  approval  of  the  Central  Government :-

(a)  assign,  sublet,  mortgage,  or  in  any  other manner, transfer the mining lease, or  any right, title or interest therein, or

(b)  enter  into  or  make  any  bonafide  arrangement,  contract,  or  understanding  whereby the lessee will or may be directly  or  indirectly  financed  to  a  substantial  extent  by,  or  under  which  the  lessee's  operations or undertakings will or may be  substantially controlled by, any person or  body of persons other than the lessee:

Provided further that where the mortgagee  is an institution or a Bank or a Corporation  specified  in  Schedule  V,  it  shall  not  be  necessary for the lessee to obtain any such  consent of the State Government.

(1A) The State Government shall not give  its  consent  to  transfer  of  mining  lease  unless the transferee has accepted all the  conditions  and  liabilities  which  the  transferor  was  having  in  respect  of  such  mining lease.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of  sub-rule (1) the lessee may, subject to the  conditions specified in the proviso to rule  35, transfer his lease or any right, title or  interest therein to a person who has filed  an affidavit stating that he has filed an up- to-date  income-tax  returns,  paid  the  income tax assessed on him and paid the  

70

Page 71

income tax on the basis of self-assessment  as  provided  in  the  Income  Tax  Act,  1961( 43 of 1961), on payment of a fee of  five  hundred  rupees  to  the  State  Government:

Provided  that  the  lessee  shall  make  available to the transferee the original or  certified copies of all  plans of abandoned  workings  in  the  area  and  in  a  belt  65  metres wide surrounding it;

Provided further that where the mortgagee  is an institution or a Bank or a Corporation  specified  in  Schedule  V,  it  shall  not  be  necessary for any such institution or Bank  or  Corporation  to  meet  with  the  requirement relating to income tax;

Provided further that the lessee shall  not  charge or accept from the transferee any  premium in addition to the sum spent by  him,  in  obtaining  the  lease,  and  for  conducting  all  or  any  of  the  operations  referred to in rule 30 in or over the land  leased to him;

(3) The State Government may, by order in  writing determine any lease at any time if  the lessee has, in the opinion of the State  Government, committed a breach of any of  the  provisions  of  sub-rule  (1)  or  sub-rule  (1A)  or  has  transferred any lease or  any  right,  title  or  interest  therein  otherwise  than in accordance with sub-rule (2);

Provided that no such order shall be made  without  giving  the  lessee  a  reasonable  opportunity of stating his case.

38. Amalgamation  of  leases. –  The  State Government may, in the interest of  mineral development and with reasons to  

71

Page 72

be  recorded  in  writing,  permit  amalgamation  of  two  or  more  adjoining  leases held by a lessee:

Provided that the period of amalgamated  leases shall be co-terminus with the lease  whose period will expire first:

Provided further that prior approval of the  Central  Government shall  be required for  such amalgamation in respect of leases for  minerals specified in Part ‘A’ and Part ‘B’ of  the First Schedule to the Act.

It  will  be clear  from sub-rule  (1)(a)  of  Rule 37 that  the  

lessee cannot  assign,  sublet,  mortgage,  or  in  any other  

manner,  transfer the mining lease,  or any right,  title or  

interest therein, without the previous consent in writing of  

the State Government in the case of those minerals which  

are not specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule  

to the Act.  Since iron ore is specified in Part C of the First  

Schedule to the Act, the previous consent in writing of the  

State Government is necessary before any such transfer is  

made by a mining lessee.  Sub-rule (1A) of Rule 37 further  

states  that  the  State  Government  shall  not  give  its  

consent to transfer of a mining lease unless the transferee  

has accepted all  the conditions and liabilities which the  

transferor  was  having  in  respect  of  such  mining  lease.  

72

Page 73

Sub-rule  (3)  of  Rule  37  further  provides  that  the  State  

Government may, by order in writing determine any lease  

at any time if the lessee has, in the opinion of the State  

Government committed a breach of any of the provisions  

of sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (1A) of Rule 37 of the MC Rules.  

These provisions have been made in Rule 37 to ensure  

that all the conditions and liabilities to which a lessee is  

subjected to under a mining lease are also accepted by  

the transferee.  Sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 further provides  

that without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1), the  

lessee may transfer his lease or any right, title or interest  

therein to a person who has filed an affidavit stating that  

he  has  filed  up-to-date  income-tax  returns,  paid  the  

income-tax assessed on him and paid the income-tax on  

the  basis  of  self-assessment  as  provided in  the  Income  

Tax Act, 1961.  This provision is meant to ensure that the  

transferee of  a  mining lease is  an income-tax assessee  

and is paying his income tax assessed on him and due  

from him on the basis of self-assessment.  Sub-rule (3) of  

Rule  37  empowers  the  State  Government  to  determine  

any lease at any time if the lessee has, in the opinion of  

73

Page 74

the State Government, committed a breach of any of the  

provisions  of  sub-rule  (1)  or  sub-rule  (1A)  or  has  

transferred any lease or any right, title, or interest therein  

otherwise than in accordance with sub-rule (2) after giving  

the lessee a reasonable opportunity of stating his case.  

The intent of the Rule-making authority in making these  

provisions in Rule 37 is that the liabilities and conditions in  

a mining lease are also enforceable against the transferee  

and that the transferee pays his dues towards income tax  

regularly.  Rule  37,  therefore,  cannot  be  allowed  to  be  

violated  by  the  lessees  with  impunity  and  the  State  

Government cannot overlook transfers by saying that the  

transfers  of  the  mining  leases  are  part  of  the  mining  

practice  in  the  State  of  Goa.   In  our  view,  if  these  

violations  of  Rule  37  are  allowed,  there  shall  be  

substantial  leakage  of  revenue  and  mining  operations  

cannot  be  effectively  regulated  and  controlled  by  the  

State  Government.   The  State  Government,  therefore,  

must  initiate  action  against  those  mining  leases  who  

violate Rule 37 of the Rules.

74

Page 75

50. Rule  38  of  the  MC  Rules  provides  that  the  State  

Government  may,  in  the  interest  of  mineral  

development  and  with  reasons  to  be  recorded  in  

writing,  permit  amalgamation  of  two  or  more  

adjoining leases held by a lessee, provided that the  

period of amalgamated leases shall  be co-terminus  

with the lease whose period will expire first.  If the  

State Government has not permitted amalgamation  

of  adjoining  leases  in  the  interest  of  mineral  

development and has not recorded the reasons for  

such permission, the State Government cannot allow  

the amalgamation of the leases.   

Was there a complete lack of control on production  and  transportation  of  mineral  from  the  mining  leases in the State of Goa:

51.  The CEC in its report has stated that in the State of  

Goa, there is no system of periodic verification of the  

quantity of iron ore produced in the mining leases,  

the  payments  of  royalty,  the  permits  issued  for  

transportation of mineral by the Mining Department,  

the transit permits issued by the Forest Department  

75

Page 76

nor any reconciliation of the quantity of the mineral  

stated to have been produced in  the mining lease  

with the quantity of the mineral for which royalty has  

been paid and transit permits have been issued, and  

there is no verification of the transit permits at the  

check posts and no verification of the quantity of the  

mineral  exported/domestically  used  vis-à-vis  the  

quantity legally produced.  According to the CEC, in  

the  absence  of  such  checks/verifications/controls,  

illegal  mining  can  easily  be  undertaken  and  the  

actual quantity of iron ore produced and transported  

from the mining leases may not be accounted for by  

the  State  of  Goa  or  by  the  lessees,  resulting  in  

leakage of revenue.  The CEC in its report has given  

a chart to show the difference of figures in the iron  

ore exported as provided by the Goan Mineral Ore  

Exporters’  Association  and  the  total  iron  ore  

produced in the State of Goa as per reports compiled  

by  the  Indian  Bureau of  Mines,  which  is  extracted  

hereinbelow:

Year Goan  Iron   Total (In  Lakh  

76

Page 77

Ore Exports Production MT)

Excess  of  exports  over  production

2006-2007    308.940    277.931    31.009 2007-2008    334.334    300.091    34.253 2008-2009    380.752    315.994    64.758 2009-2010    456.869    331.649    125.22 2010-2011    468.464    328.059    140.405     Total 1949.369  1553.724    395.645

According to the CEC, there is every reason to believe that  

the excess quantity of 395.645 lakh MT, as shown in the  

aforesaid chart, is illegally mined ore.

52. We entirely  agree with  the  CEC report  that  in  the  

absence of proper checks, verifications and controls,  

there  is  bound  to  be  illegal  mining,  storage  and  

transportation of minerals, but we find that after the  

CEC  Report,  the  Goa  (Prevention  of  Illegal  Mining,  

Storage and Transportation of Minerals) Rules, 2013  

have been framed by the State Government under  

Section 23(c) of the MMDR Act.  A reading of these  

Rules show that several provisions have been made  

in  these  rules  to  prevent  illegal  mining  and  to  

77

Page 78

regulate the sale, export and transit of ore, storage  

of mineral and transportation and winning of mineral.  

The  rules  also  provide  for  establishment  of  check  

posts,  barriers  and weighbridges  and inspection  of  

minerals in transit.  Moreover, these rules empower  

any person authorised by the Government to enter,  

inspect,  search  and seize  articles.  These  rules  will  

have to be strictly enforced by the State Government  

and we hope that by such strict enforcement of these  

rules,  the  mining,  storage  and  transportation  of  

minerals in the State of Goa will get controlled and  

regulated and the leakages and evasion of revenue  

will, to a large extent, be prevented.   

To  what  extent  mining  has  damaged  the  environment in Goa and what measures are to be  taken  to  ensure  inter-generational  equity  and  sustainable development:   

53. Mr.  Prashant  Bhushan,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for Goa Foundation, relying on the report of the  

Justice  Shah  Commission,  submitted  that  substantial  

damage has been caused to the eco sensitive zone in Goa  

by excavating large quantities of iron ore through mining  

and as suggested by the Justice Shah Commission action  

78

Page 79

should  be taken in  this  regard.   He submitted that  the  

conditions stipulated in the EIA clearances imposed by the  

Chief Wildlife Warden, Goa, have not been implemented.  

He  submitted  that  the  environmental  clearance  system  

has actually collapsed resulting in amassing of wealth by  

certain  individuals  and  companies  at  the  cost  of  the  

environment  and  the  eco-system.   He  submitted  that  

principles  of  sustainable  development  and  inter-

generational equity which were part of the fundamental  

right under Article 21 of the Constitution, require that a  

cap should be put on the annual excavation of iron ore  

from different mines in the State of Goa, after taking into  

account the need to conserve iron ore resources for future  

generations and the carrying capacity of the State of Goa  

for mining and transportation of mineral ores.

54. Learned counsel  appearing  for  the lessees,  on the  

other hand, submitted that there are adequate provisions  

in  the  MCD  Rules  for  preventing  damage  to  the  

environment and for restoration of the environment.  They  

referred to Rules 23A, 23B, 23D and 23E of the MCD Rules  

which relate to the mine closure plan which must provide  

79

Page 80

for  protective  measures  including  reclamation  and  

rehabilitation work. They submitted that the holder of the  

mining  lease,  therefore,  has  to  take  all  the  protective  

measures  including  reclamation  and  rehabilitation  work  

before  abandoning  the  mine.   They  submitted  that  

Chapter  V  of  the  MCD  Rules  also  contains  various  

provisions which a holder of mining lease has to comply  

and these provisions include precautions for protection of  

environment and controlling of pollution while conducting  

mining operations in the area.  In reply to the submissions  

of Mr. Bhushan that there should be a cap on the annual  

excavation of mineral ore in the State of Goa to ensure  

that  future  generations  are  not  denied  the  mineral  

resources,  Mr.  Mukul  Rohtagi,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing for Sesa Goa Limited, relied on a publication of  

the  British  Geological  Survey  and  submitted  that  there  

would  never  be  any  scarcity  of  mineral  resources  and  

there would  be enough for  the future generations.   He  

submitted that Sesa Goa Limited has also taken steps to  

reclaim  the  land  which  was  damaged  through  mining  

operation  and  produced  photographs  to  show  how  

80

Page 81

reclamation and rehabilitation work has been done after  

mining was over in any area.

55. Mr. N.S. Nadakarni, learned Advocate General for the  

State of Goa, submitted that in the Goa Mineral Policy of  

2013, State Government has proposed a capping of the  

mineral ores to be excavated annually in the State of Goa  

based on the carrying capacity of public roads and the  

need to protect inter-generational equity.  He submitted  

that as per the Goa Mineral Policy of 2013, until the road  

capacity in Goa improves, there should be a gross capping  

at 45 MT per annum.  

56. After  considering  the  aforesaid  submissions  of  

learned counsel for the parties, we took the view that a  

Committee of  Experts  must  conduct  a macro EIA study  

and propose ceiling of the annual excavation of iron ore  

from the State of Goa, considering its iron ore resources  

and  its  carrying  capacity  and  keeping  in  mind  the  

principles  of  sustainable  development  and  inter-

generational  equity  and  all  other  relevant  factors.  

Accordingly, by orders dated 11.11.2013 and 18.11.2013,  

we constituted an Expert Committee comprising Professor  

81

Page 82

C.R. Babu (Ecologist),  Dr. S.D. Dhiman (Geologist/Hydro-

geologist), Professor B.K. Mishra (Mineralogist), Professor  

S. Parameshwarppa (Forestry), Shri Parimal Rai (Nominee  

of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of  

India).  This Expert Committee has submitted an interim  

report  dated  14.03.2014.   In  this  report,  the  Expert  

Committee  has  indicated  that  the  economy  of  Goa  

depends  on  tourism  and  iron  ore  mining,  besides  

agriculture,  horticulture  and  minor  industries,  but  in  

recent years, while there has been increase in the growth  

rate in tourism and mining, there has been a decline in  

the  growth  rate  of  agriculture  and fishing.   The Expert  

Committee has in particular highlighted the damage that  

has been done by increase in the production of iron ore  

through mining to the environment in Goa in the following  

words:

“The production of iron ore has jumped  from 14.6 million tons in 1941 to 41.17  million tons in 2010-11.  In 1980’s the  production  was  about  10  MT/annum.  The  quantum  jump  in  iron  ore  production in Goa was essentially due to  steep rise in exports of fines and other  low  grade  ore  of  42%  Fe  content  to  China.  This has led to massive negative  

82

Page 83

impacts  on  all  ecosystems  leading  to  enhanced air,  water,  and soil  pollution  affecting quality of life across Goa.  This  is evident by three important reports i.e.  (i)  Area  wide  Environmental  Quality  Management (AEQM) Plan for the Mining  belt  of  Goa  by  Tata  Energy  Research  Institute, New Delhi and Goa (1997) and  it  was  submitted  to  the  Directorate  of  Planning,  Statistics,  and  Evaluation,  Government  of  Goa,  (ii)  Environmental  and  Social  Performance  Indicators  and  Sustainability  Markers  in  Minerals  Development  Reporting  progress  towards  improved  Ecosystem  Health  and Human Well-being, Phase-III by TERI  and  International  Development  Research  Centre,  Ottawa,  Canada  (2006)  and  (iii)  the  Regional  Environmental Impact Study of iron ore  mining  in  Goa  region  sponsored  by  MoEF,  New  Delhi  (2014)  by  Indian  School  of  Mines.   Besides  the  above  three  main  Reports,  a  number  of  scientific research papers on the impact  of  iron ore mining on the environment  and ecology of diverse ecosystems were  published by scientists  working at  Goa  university and NIO.

These  reports  and  publications  substantiates  that  the  mining,  particularly  the  enhanced  level  of  annual  production  contributed  to  adverse  impacts  on  the  ecological  systems,  socio  economics  of  Goa  and  health of people of Goa leading to loss  of  ecological  integrity.   This  is  due  to  enhanced  levels  of  pollutants,  particularly  RSPM  and  SPM,  sedimentation of materials from dumps  and  iron  ore  in  rivers,  estuaries  and  

83

Page 84

shallow  depth  (20m)  of  sea  water,  agricultural fields, high concentration of  Fe and Mn in surface waters and their  bioaccumulation.”

The Expert Committee has also studied the sustainability  

of  iron  ore  mining  in  the  Goa  and  after  analyzing  the  

existing  data  from  TERI  report,  1997,  ISM,  Dhanbad  

Report,  2013,  Pollution  Control  Board,  Goa  (Annual  

Report)  and  relevant  literature  relating  to  sustainability  

and  after  adopting  the  Folchi  method  has  given  the  

opinion that mining at the rate of 20 to 27.5 million tons  

per  annum  appears  sustainable  in  the  State  of  Goa.  

However, in its summary of recommendations, the Expert  

Committee has made these recommendations:

“10.  To  eliminate  the  element  of  subjectivity, due to the time constraints  and  limitation  of  available  authentic  time  series  data  relating  to  mineral  resources and environmental impact of  mining  in  the  State  of  Goa,  this  Committee  suggests  that  mining  be  permitted to be carried out at the level  of  20  million  ton  per  annum  with  adequate  monitoring  of  impacts  on  different  ecological  and  environmental  parameters,  which  will  also  help  this  Committee in its future appraisal.   

84

Page 85

11.  Till  the  scientific  study  by  this  Committee  is  completed,  which  may  take about 12 months more, the mining  activity  at  levels  as  directed  by  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court,  be  strictly  monitored  and  regulated  by  the  Department of Mines and Geology and  Goa State Pollution Control Board of the  State of Goa, in consultation with other  statutory bodies such as Indian Bureau  of  Mines,  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests (Govt. of India) and others.”  

It, thus, appears that the Expert Committee has suggested  

that  for  the time being annual  excavation of  20 million  

tons of iron ore may be permitted in Goa with adequate  

monitoring  impacts  on  different  ecological  and  

environmental parameters, which will also help the Expert  

Committee  in  its  future  appraisal.   Regarding  the  

authorities or agencies which should strictly monitor and  

regulate  the  mining  activities  in  Goa,  the  Expert  

Committee  has  recommended  that  the  Department  of  

Mines and Geology of  Government  of  Goa and the Goa  

State  Pollution  Control  Board  in  consultation  with  other  

statutory bodies such as Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry  

of Environment and Forests (Government of India) should  

carry  on  such  monitoring  and  regulation  strictly.   The  

Expert Committee, however, has said nothing about how  

85

Page 86

the  mining  dumps  inside  or  outside  the  leased  areas  

noticed by the Justice Shah Commission are to be dealt  

with presumably because in our order dated 11.11.2013  

we had not issued any direction in this regard.  We think  

that we should seek the opinion of the Expert Committee  

in this regard.  

57. We find that the State Government has also engaged  

the services of NEERI for macro level EIA study for Clusters  

of  Iron Ore Mines in  the State of  Goa,  but  NEERI  in  its  

preliminary  report  has  not  recommended  as  to  what  

should be the total quantum of annual production of iron  

ore  in  Goa  in  future.   We  also  find  that  Ministry  of  

Environment  and  Forests,  Government  of  India  had  

entrusted the Indian School  of  Mines (ISM),  Dhanbad to  

carry  out  a  regional  environment  impact  assessment  

study  of  mining  in  Goa  region  and  ISM,  Dhanbad  has  

submitted  its  report  proposing  a  cap of  24.995 MT per  

annum on the basis of the carrying capacity of the existing  

infrastructure of Goa.  Relevant portion of the report of  

ISM, Dhanbad, is extracted hereinbelow:  

“20.7.4.7 Cluster Wise Capping on Transport

86

Page 87

The cap of 24.995MTPA proposed in the aforementioned  section  is  dependent  primarily  on  the  existing  infrastructure and must be followed based on the spatial  variations.   To  present  an overall  capacity  of  mining in  North  Goa and South  Goa,  the  road capacity  has  been  taken  as  a  parameter.   The  capacity  was  arrived  at  13.685MTPA for North Goa and 11.31MTPA for South Goa.  The cap proposed will not include the mines lying within  the  buffer  zones  as  these  have  imposed  restriction  of  phasing out in time bound period. Further, this cap can be  represented into a cluster wise scenario to decipher how  much  each  cluster  will  be  able  to  transport  under  the  existing transport facilities.  The values are presented in  table below.

Table 20.7.19:  Cluster Wise Capping on Transport  Based on Existing Transport Facilities

Cluster Routes Capacity of the  Routes  (MTPA)

Capacity of the  Cluster  (MTPA)

Adwalpal- Bicholim

Adwalpale  to  Sirsai Jetty

0.81 5.875

Shrigao  to  Sirsai Jetty

1.26

Shrigao  to  Kalvin Jetty

1.16

Dahbdhaba  to  Sarmanas  

2.645

Velguem- Pissurlem

Sonshi  to  Amona Jetty

2.11 7.9

Sanquelim  to  Amona Jetty

0.52

Honda  to  Navelim(Maina

1.32

Sonshi  to  Khazan Jetty

1.32

87

Page 88

Ambesi  to  Cotambi Jetty

1.29

Digneum  to  Surla Jetty

1.34

Codli-Costi Codli  to  Amona Jetty

1.94 4.69

Codli  to  Capxem Jetty

1.24

Costi  to  Sanvordem

1.51

Collem Collem  to  Amona Jetty

1.94 2.76

Shigao  to  Sanvordem

0.82

Tollem Tollem  to  Shelvona Jetty

1.71 1.71

Maina-  Sulcorna

Sulcorna  to  Shelvona Jetty

1.02 2.06

Maina  to  Shelvona

1.04

Total capacity of the Region 24.995

Thus,  the  cumulative  ore  transportation  capacity  of  the  

existing road networks is 24.995MTPA.”    

We, therefore, find that the Expert Committee as well as  

ISM,  Dhanbad,  after  considering  the  available  data  and  

after considering the adverse impact on environment and  

the limited carrying capacity of the transport  system in  

Goa,  are of  the opinion that  a cap between 20 to 27.5  

million tons per annum should be fixed for excavation of  

iron  ore  in  the  State  of  Goa.   In  its  recommendations,  

however, the Expert Committee has suggested that till the  

88

Page 89

scientific study by the Expert Committee is completed in  

about  12  months  or  so,  and  more  of  data  including  

impacts on different ecological environmental parameters  

is available through monitoring of the impacts by different  

agencies including the Goa State Pollution Control Board,  

20 million tons per annum should be fixed as the annual  

excavation of iron ore in Goa.

58. Even this mining of 20 million tons per annum in the  

State of Goa, according to the Expert Committee, has to  

be strictly monitored and regulated by the Department of  

Mines and Geology, Government of Goa and the Goa State  

Pollution Control Board in consultation with other statutory  

bodies such as the Indian Bureau of Mines, the Ministry of  

Environment  and  Forests  (Government  of  India)  and  

others.   It  was  the  responsibility  of  the  Government  of  

Goa, Department of Mines, to enforce the provisions of the  

MMDR Act, the MC Rules and the MCD Rules, but as we  

have already noticed, this responsibility was not properly  

discharged.   We hope that  in  future,  it  will  enforce the  

provisions of the MMDR Act, the MC Rules, the MCD Rules  

89

Page 90

and  the  Goa  (Prevention  of  Illegal  Mining,  Storage  and  

Transportation of Minerals) Rules, 2013.   

59. The Goa State Pollution Control Board has immense  

powers under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution)  

Act, 1974 (for short ‘the 1974 Act’) to prevent pollution of  

water.  Section 33A of the 1974 Act which confers on the  

State Pollution Control Board the power to give directions  

is quoted hereinbelow:

“33A.  Power  to  give  directions.— Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  any  other  law,  but  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  and  to  any  directions that the Central Government  may give in this behalf, a Board may, in  the  exercise  of  its  powers  and  performance of its functions under this  Act,  issue  any  directions  in  writing  to  any  person,  officer  or  authority,  and  such person, officer or authority shall be  bound to comply with such directions.  

Explanation.—For  the  avoidance  of  doubts,  it  is  hereby  declared  that  the  power  to  issue  directions  under  this  section includes the power to direct— (a) the closure, prohibition or regulation  of any industry, operation or process; or

(b) the stoppage or regulation of supply  of  electricity,  water  or  any  other  service.”

90

Page 91

Similarly, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,  

1981(for short ‘the 1981 Act’) confers immense powers on  

the State Pollution Control Board to prevent air pollution.  

Section 31A of the 1981 Act which confers powers on the  

State Pollution Control Board to give directions is quoted  

hereinbelow:

“31A.  Power  to  give  directions.— Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  any  other  law,  but  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  and  to  any  directions that the Central Government  may give in this behalf, a Board may, in  the  exercise  of  its  powers  and  performance of its functions under this  Act,  issue  any  directions  in  writing  to  any  person,  officer  or  authority,  and  such person, officer or authority shall be  bound to comply with such directions.  

Explanation.—For  the  avoidance  of  doubts,  it  is  hereby  declared  that  the  power  to  issue  directions  under  this  section includes the power to direct—

(a) the closure, prohibition or regulation  of any industry, operation or process; or

(b) the stoppage or regulation of supply  of  electricity,  water  or  any  other  service.”

60. It  will  be  clear  from  the  aforesaid  provisions  of  

Section 33A of the 1974 Act and Section 31A of the 1981  

91

Page 92

Act that the Goa State Pollution Control Board had powers  

to  issue  any  direction  including  the  power  to  close,  

prohibit or regulate mining operations or even to stop or  

regulate supply of electricity, water or any other service  

with a view to prevent water pollution or air pollution.  Yet,  

from the report of the Expert Committee as well as the  

reports of ISM, Dhanbad and NEERI, it is clear that iron ore  

production in Goa has led to massive negative impacts on  

all  ecosystems  leading  to  enhanced  air,  water  and  soil  

pollution  affecting  quality  of  life  across  Goa.   The  Goa  

State  Pollution  Control  Board  in  its  note  filed  in  Writ  

Petition (C) No.435 of 2012, however, states:

“Details  of  monitoring  of  water  quality   (with regards to mining leases) from 2007  to 2012 – The Board conducts inspections  during  the  monsoon  and  other  seasons  also  to  verify  the  discharge  of  surface  runoff/discharge from the pit outside the  mining lease and also collects samples for  analyzing  in  the  Board  Laboratory.  Wherever  the  parameters  exceed  the  prescribed limits necessary directions are  issued  to  the  mining  units  to  take  remedial  measures  for  controlling  the  waste  water  being  discharged  into  the  water  bodies/fields  without  treatment.  Directions  are  also  issued  to  provide  settling ponds,  arrestor  walls,  filter  beds  so as to ensure that no untreated waste  

92

Page 93

water  is  discharged  into  the  water  bodies/fields.

Details of  monitoring of air  quality (with   regards  to  mining  leases)  from 2007 to  2012 – The Board is presently carrying out  the  periodic  monitoring  of  Air  Quality  in  pre-selected  areas  throughout  the  State  to comply with one of the mandates of the  Central  Pollution  Control  Board  (CPCB)  under  National  Ambient  Monitoring  Programme (NAMP) at 16 stations.”  

We do  not  agree with  Mr.  Arvind  Datar,  learned senior  

counsel  for  the  Goa  State  Pollution  Control  Board,  that  

sincere efforts were made by the Pollution Control Board  

to monitor the water quality and air quality in the mining  

areas.   Rather,  it  appears  that  the  Goa  State  Pollution  

Control Board, though conferred with immense statutory  

powers, has failed to discharge its statutory functions and  

duties.   We hope that in  future the Goa State Pollution  

Control Board exercises strict vigil and monitors the water  

quality and air quality in accordance with the provisions of  

the  two  Acts  and  if  necessary,  exercises  the  powers  

conferred on it to close down mining operation of a lessee,  

if  the lessee does not  conform to  the air  emission and  

water  discharge  standards  while  carrying  on  mining  

93

Page 94

operations and does not take other preventive measures  

as directed by the State Pollution Control Board.

61. Regarding  the  regulation  by  the  Ministry  of  

Environment and Forests, in our order dated 06.01.2014  

passed in I.A. Nos.1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380, 2568 and  

2937  in  Writ  Petition  (Civil)  No.202  of  1995  (T.N.  

Godavarman Thirumulpad v.  Union of  India  & Ors.),  we  

have  already  directed  Union  of  India  to  appoint  a  

Regulator with offices in as many States as possible under  

sub-section  (3)  of  Section  3  of  the  Environment  

(Protection) Act, 1986 as directed in the order in the case  

of  Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited.   As and when  

the Union of India appoints a Regulator under sub-section  

(3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986  

with an office for  Goa in  compliance with the aforesaid  

direction  of  this  Court,  the  Regulator  so  appointed  will  

carry out its functions in accordance with the order passed  

under  sub-section  (3)  of  Section  3  of  the  Environment  

(Protection) Act, 1986.

62. Regulatory and monitoring measures enforced by the  

Departments  of  Mines  and  Geology,  the  Goa  State  

94

Page 95

Pollution Control  Board and the Regulator  appointed by  

the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 3  

of  the  Environment  (Protection)  Act,  1986  cannot,  

however,  restore  entirely  the  environment  that  is  

damaged  in  course  of  mining  operations.   The  Expert  

Committee  has,  therefore,  recommended  that  a  

permanent  fund  for  inter-generational  equity  and  

sustainability of mining for  all  times to come named as  

“Goan  Iron  Ore  Permanent  Fund”  be  created  and  an  

expert group may be constituted by the State for working  

out  the  details  of  this  fund.   Mr.  Harish  Salve,  learned  

Amicus Curiae,  submitted that  as the lessees of  mining  

leases  earn  out  of  the  sale  proceeds  of  the  iron  ore  

excavated by them, they should be directed to contribute  

10% of the sale proceeds of all iron ore excavated in the  

State of Goa and sold by them towards the Goan Iron Ore  

Permanent Fund.  He cited the judgment of this Court in  

Samaj  Parivartana  Samudaya  and  Ors. v. State  of  

Karnataka  and  Ors. (supra)  in  which  this  Court  has  

similarly directed for creation of a Special Purpose Vehicle  

out  of  10% of  the  sale  proceeds  of  the  ore  sold  by  e-

95

Page 96

auction.  There is a lot of force in the aforesaid submission  

of Mr. Salve.   

63. We find from the report of the Expert Committee that  

the State of Goa heavily depends on iron ore mining for  

revenue as  well  as  employment.   The legislative  policy  

behind  the  MMDR  Act  made  by  Parliament  is  mineral  

development through mining.  The State Government of  

Goa has also adopted the executive policy to encourage  

mining of minerals in Goa.  Moreover, as Mr. Ravi Shankar  

Prasad,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  33  

Panchayats,  has  submitted  about  1.5  lakh  people  are  

directly employed in mining in Goa and large number of  

persons have taken bank loans and purchased trucks for  

transportation of iron ore.  Hence, people who earn their  

livelihood through work in connection with mining will be  

seriously affected if mining is totally banned to protect the  

environment.   We  cannot,  therefore,  prohibit  mining  

altogether, but if mining has to continue, the lessees who  

benefit the most from mining, must contribute from their  

sale proceeds to the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund for  

sustainable mining.  Accordingly, in exercise of our powers  

96

Page 97

under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution,  

we direct that henceforth 10% of the sale proceeds of iron  

ore excavated in the State of Goa and sold by the lessees  

must  be  appropriated  towards  the  Goan  Iron  Ore  

Permanent  Fund  for  the  purpose  of  sustainable  

development and inter-generational equity and the State  

of  Goa  in  consultation  with  the  CEC  will  frame  a  

comprehensive  scheme  in  this  regard  and  submit  the  

same to this Court within six months.   

Whether  in  future  the  mining  leases  are  to  be  auctioned or have to be granted in accordance with  the policy  of  the State and the provisions  of  the  MMDR Act and the MC Rules?

64. Mr.  Prashant  Bhushan,  learned  counsel  for  Goa  

Foundation,  submitted  that  in  Article  39(b)  of  the  

Constitution, it is provided that the ownership and control  

of the material resources of the community should be so  

distributed so as to best subserve the common good and,  

therefore,  the  State  cannot  distribute  the  material  

resource  of  the  community  in  any  way  it  likes.   He  

submitted that  in  Centre for  Public  Interest  Litigation &  

Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2012) 3 SCC 1], a two-Judge  

97

Page 98

Bench of this Court has held relying on Article 39(b) of the  

Constitution  that  the  State  is  the  legal  owner  of  the  

natural resources as a trustee of the people and although  

it  is  empowered to  distribute  the  same,  the  process  of  

distribution must be guided by the constitutional principles  

including the doctrine of equality and larger public good.  

He submitted that  in  the aforesaid case,  the two Judge  

Bench  has  further  held  that  a  duly  publicized  auction  

conducted  fairly  and  impartially  is  perhaps  the  best  

method for discharging this burden and methods like ‘first-

come-first-served’  when  used  for  alienation  of  natural  

resources/public  property  are  likely  to  be  misused  by  

unscrupulous people who are only interested in garnering  

maximum financial  benefit  and have no respect  for  the  

constitutional  ethos  and  values.   He  relied  on  the  

conclusion  of  the  two Judge Bench of  this  Court  in  the  

aforesaid  case  that  while  transferring  or  alienating  the  

natural  resources,  the State is  duty-bound to adopt the  

method  of  auction  by  giving  wide  publicity  so  that  all  

eligible  persons  can  participate  in  the  process.    He  

submitted that as MMDR Act does not prohibit the State  

98

Page 99

from  holding  auction  of  the  mining  leases,  this  Court  

should  direct  that  in  future  the  mining  leases  must  be  

auctioned by the State Government.  

65. Learned  counsel  for  the  lessees  and  the  learned  

Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that the  

MMDR  Act  and  the  MC  Rules  have  made  specific  

provisions regarding the manner in which the State is to  

grant mining leases and it is for the State to take decisions  

on grant of mining leases in accordance with the policy  

and the provisions of the MMDR Act and the MC Rules.  

They cited the opinion of the Constitution Bench of this  

Court  in  Natural  Resources  Allocation,  In  Re,  Special   

Reference No.1 of 2012 [(2012) 10 SCC 1] that auction  

despite  being  a  more  preferable  method  of  

alienation/allotment of natural resources, cannot be held  

to  be  a  constitutional  requirement  or  limitation  for  

alienation of  all  natural  resources and,  therefore,  every  

method other than auction cannot be struck down as ultra  

vires the constitutional mandate.

99

Page 100

66. We are of  the considered opinion that it  is  for  the  

State Government to decide as a matter of policy in what  

manner the leases of these mineral  resources would be  

granted, but this decision has to be taken in accordance  

with the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made  

thereunder  and  in  consonance  with  the  constitutional  

provisions and the decision taken by the State of Goa to  

grant  a  mining  lease  in  a  particular  manner  or  to  a  

particular party can be examined by way of judicial review  

by the Court.  To quote the opinion of four Judges out of  

five Judges expressed by D.K. Jain J. in Natural Resources  

Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No.1 of 2012 (supra):

“Alienation  of  natural  resources  is  a  policy decision, and the means adopted  for  the  same  are  thus,  executive  prerogatives.  However,  when  such  a  policy decision is not backed by a social  or  welfare  purpose,  and  precious  and  scarce  natural  resources  are  alienated  for  commercial  pursuits  of  profit  maximising  private  entrepreneurs,  adoption of means other than those that  are competitive and maximise revenue  may be arbitrary and face the wrath of  Article  14  of  the  Constitution.  Hence,  rather than prescribing or proscribing a  method,  we believe,  a  judicial  scrutiny  of  methods  of  disposal  of  natural  resources  should  depend  on  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  each  case,  in  

10

Page 101

consonance with the principles which we  have culled out above. Failing which, the  Court,  in  exercise  of  power  of  judicial  review, shall  term the executive action  as  arbitrary,  unfair,  unreasonable  and  capricious  due  to  its  antimony  with  Article 14 of the Constitution.”

Whether  suspension  of  mining  operations  in  the  State  of  Goa  by  order  dated  10.09.2012  of  the  Government  of  Goa  and  the  suspension  of  the  Environmental Clearances granted to the mines in  the State of Goa by order dated 14.09.2012 were  legal and valid?

67. As we have held that the deemed mining leases of  

the  lessees  in  Goa  expired  on  22.11.1987  and  the  

maximum period  (20  years)  of  renewal  of  the  deemed  

mining  leases  in  Goa  has  also  expired  on  22.11.2007,  

mining by the lessees in Goa after 22.11.2007 was illegal.  

Hence, the order dated 10.09.2012 of the Government of  

Goa suspending mining operations in the State of Goa and  

the order dated 14.09.2012 of the  MoEF, Government of  

India,  suspending the environmental  clearances granted  

to  the  mines  in  the  State  of  Goa,  which  have  been  

impugned in the writ petitions in the Bombay High Court,  

Goa  Bench  (transferred  to  this  Court  and  registered  as  

10

Page 102

transferred cases) cannot be quashed by this Court.  The  

order dated 10.09.2012 of the Government of Goa and the  

order dated 14.09.2012 of the MoEF will have to continue  

till decisions are taken by the State Government to grant  

fresh leases and decisions are taken by the MoEF to grant  

fresh environmental clearances for mining projects.

68. On 05.10.2012, this Court while issuing notice in Writ  

Petition (C) No.435 of 2012 (Goa Foundation vs.  Union of  

India  &  Others)  also  passed  orders  that  all  mining  

operations  in  the  leases  identified  in  the  report  of  the  

Justice  Shah Commission  and transportation  of  iron  ore  

and manganese ore from those leases, whether lying at  

the  mine-head  or  stockyards,  shall  remain  suspended.  

Thereafter on 11.11.2013, this Court passed an order that  

the  inventory  of  the  excavated  mineral  ores  lying  in  

different mines/stockyards/jetties/ports in the State of Goa  

made by  the  Department  of  Mines  and  Geology  of  the  

Government of Goa be verified and thereafter the whole of  

the inventorised mineral ores be sold by e-auction and the  

sale  proceeds  (less  taxes  and  royalty)  be  retained  in  

separate fixed deposits (lease-wise) by the State of Goa  

10

Page 103

till  this Court delivers judgment in these matters on the  

legality of the leases from which the mineral ores were  

extracted.   In  our  order  passed on 11.11.2013,  we had  

also directed that this entire process of verification of the  

inventory,  e-auction  and  deposit  of  sale  proceeds  be  

monitored by a Monitoring Committee appointed by the  

Court.   The  Monitoring  Committee  comprising  Dr.  U.V.  

Singh (Additional  Principal  Chief  Conservator  of  Forests,  

Karnataka),  Shri  Shaikh  Naimuddin  (former  Member  of  

Central Board of Direct Taxes) and Parimal Rai (Nominee  

of Govt. of Goa) have in the meanwhile monitored the e-

auction.  We extract  hereinbelow the relevant  portion of  

the  interim  report  dated  12.03.2014  of  the  Monitoring  

Committee:

“After the two e-auctions, the total ore  auctioned is about 1.62 million MT and  the total value realized is 260.68 crores  approximately.   As  directed  by  this  Hon’ble  Court,  the  State  Government  has  been  requested  to  maintain  separate accounts, lease wise, and keep  the  sale  proceeds  as  fixed  deposits  in  Nationalized Banks.

The process of transportation of ore for  export  has  not  yet  been  initiated  because  of  the  storage  charges  being  demanded from the successful bidder by  

10

Page 104

the Marmagoa Port  Trust  (MPT).   As  a  result, the process of e-auction is likely  to  slow  down.   The  extent  of  storage  charges demanded is  as per  Annexure  MC III.”     

69.   As we have held that renewal of all  the deemed  

mining  leases  in  the  State  of  Goa  had  expired  on  

22.11.2007, the mining lessees will not be entitled to the  

sale value of the ores sold in e-auction but they will  be  

entitled to the approximate cost (not actual cost) of the  

extraction  of  the  ores.   On  account  of  suspension  of  

mining operations in the State of Goa, the workers who  

were employed by the lessees claim that they have not  

been  paid  their  wages.   Under  Section  25C  of  the  

Industrial  Disputes,  Act,  1947,  when  a  workman  whose  

name  is  borne  on  the  muster  rolls  of  an  industrial  

establishment and who has completed not less than one  

year of continuous service under an employer is laid-off,  

he is entitled to be paid by the employer for all the days  

which he is so laid-off, except for such weekly holidays as  

may intervene, compensation which shall be equal to 50%  

of the total  of  the basic wages and dearness allowance  

that would have been payable to him had he not been so  

10

Page 105

laid-off.  Following this principle of lay-off compensation,  

we hold that workers who could not be paid wages by the  

lessees will have to be paid compensation at the rate of  

50% of their basic wages and dearness allowance during  

the period of non-employment on account of suspension of  

mining operations.   Moreover,  Marmagoa Port  Trust  will  

have to be paid 50% of their charges for storage of the  

mineral ores after 05.10.2012.

70. The entire sale value of the stock of mineral ores sold  

by e-auction less the average cost of excavation, 50% of  

the wages and allowances and 50% of the storage charges  

to be paid to MPT is thus due to State Government which  

is the owner of the mineral ores which have been sold by  

e-auction.   The State Government will  set-aside 10% of  

this  balance  amount  for  the  Goan  Iron  Ore  Permanent  

Fund  for  the  purpose  of  sustainable  development  and  

inter-generational  equity.   This  entire  exercise  of  

calculating the average cost of extraction of ores to be  

paid to the mining lessees, 50% of the basic wages and  

dearness allowance to be paid to the workers, 10% of the  

balance  amount  towards  the  Goan  Iron  Ore  Permanent  

10

Page 106

Fund and the balance amount to be appropriated by the  

State Government will be done by the Director of Mines  

and Geology, Government of Goa, under the supervision of  

the Monitoring Committee.  Till this exercise is over and  

the  report  of  the  Monitoring  Committee  is  filed,  the  

Monitoring  Committee  will  continue  and  their  members  

will be paid their remuneration allowances as directed in  

the order dated 11.11.2013.

71. In the result, we declare that:  

(i) the deemed mining leases of the lessees in Goa  expired on 22.11.1987 and the maximum of 20 years  renewal period of the deemed mining leases in Goa  expired on 22.11.2007 and consequently mining by  the lessees after  22.11.2007 was illegal  and hence  the  impugned  order  dated  10.09.2012  of  Government of Goa and the impugned order dated  14.09.2012 of the MoEF, Government of India are not  liable to be quashed;  

(ii)  dumping of minerals outside the leased area of  the  mining  lessees  is  not  permissible  under  the  MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder;  

10

Page 107

(iii) until the order dated 04.08.2006 of this Court is  modified  by  this  Court  in  I.A.  No.1000  in  T.N.  Godavarman Thirumulpad v.  Union of  India & Ors.,  there  can  be  no  mining  activities  within  one  kilometer from the boundaries of National Parks and  Sanctuaries in Goa;  

(iv) by the order dated 04.12.2006 in Writ Petition (C)  No.460 of 2004 (Goa Foundation v. Union of India),  this Court has not prohibited mining activities within  10 kilometers  distance  from the boundaries  of  the  National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries;  

(v)  it  is  for  the  State  Government  to  decide  as  a  matter of policy in what manner mining leases are to  be  granted  in  future  but  the  constitutionality  or  legality of the decision of the State Government can  be examined by the Court in exercise of its power of  judicial review.  

And we direct that:  

(i)  MoEF  will  issue  the  notification  of  eco-sensitive  zones  around  the  National  Park  and  Wildlife  Sanctuaries  of  Goa  after  following  the  procedure  discussed  in  this  judgment  within  a  period  of  six  months from today;  

(ii) the State Government will initiate action against  those mining lessees who violate Rules 37 and 38 of  the MC Rules;  

10

Page 108

(iii)  the  State  Government  will  strictly  enforce  the  Goa  (Prevention  of  Illegal  Mining,  Storage  and  Transportation of Minerals) Rules, 2013;  

(iv) the State Government may grant mining leases  of iron ore and other ores in Goa in accordance with  its policy decision and in accordance with MMDR Act  and the Rules made thereunder in consonance with  the constitutional provisions;  

(v) until  the final report is submitted by the Expert  Committee,  the  State  Government  will,  in  the  interests  of  sustainable  development  and  intergenerational equity, permit a maximum annual  excavation of 20 million MT from the mining leases in  the State of Goa other than from dumps;  

(vi)  the  Goa  Pollution  Control  Board  will  strictly  monitor  the  air  and  water  pollution  in  the  mining  areas and exercise powers available to it under the  1974 Act and 1981 Act including the powers under  Section 33A of the 1974 Act and Section 31A of the  1981 Act and furnish all relevant data to the Expert  Committee;  

(vii)  the  entire  sale  value  of  the  e-auction  of  the  inventorised ores will be forthwith realised and out of  the  total  sale  value,  the  Director  of  Mines  and  Geology, Government of Goa, under the supervision  of the Monitoring Committee will make the following  payments:

10

Page 109

(a)  Average cost  of  excavation  of  iron  ores to the mining lessees;

(b)  50%  of  the  wages  and  dearness  allowance to the workers in the muster  rolls of the mining leases who have not  been paid their wages during the period  of suspension of mining operations;

(c)  50%  of  the  claim  towards  storage  charges of MPT.

Out of the balance, 10% will be appropriated towards  the  Goan  Iron  Ore  Permanent  Fund  and  the  remaining amount will be appropriated by the State  Government as the owner of the ores;   

(viii)  the Monitoring Committee will  submit  its  final  report on the utilization and appropriation of the sale  proceeds  of  the  inventorised  ores  in  the  manner  directed  in  this  judgment  within  six  months  from  today;  

(ix)  henceforth,  the  mining  lessees  of  iron  ore  will  have to pay 10% of the sale price of the iron ore sold  by them to the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund.

(x) the State Government will within six months from  today frame a comprehensive scheme with regard to  the Goan Iron Ore Permanent  Fund in  consultation  with  the  CEC  for  sustainable  development  and  

10

Page 110

intergenerational equity and submit the same to this  Court within six months from today; and  

(xi) the Expert Committee will submit its report within  six months from today on how the mining dumps in  the State of Goa should be dealt with and will submit  its final report within twelve months from today on  the cap to be put on the annual excavation of iron  ore in Goa.

70.  With the aforesaid declarations and directions, Writ  

Petition (C) No.435 of 2012 is allowed.  The Transferred  

Cases and IA filed by MPT as well as other IAs also stand  

disposed of.  The interim order dated 05.10.2012 of this  

Court is vacated.  These matters will be listed as and when  

the  Monitoring  Committee  and  the  Expert  Committee  

submit  their  final  reports  and  the  State  Government  

submits  the  scheme  for  the  Goan  Iron  Ore  Permanent  

Fund.  The parties shall bear their own costs.   

....……………..……………………….J.                                    (A. K. Patnaik)

                     …...…………..………………………..J.

                         (Surinder Singh Nijjar)

11

Page 111

    …....…………..………………………..J.                                  (Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla)

New Delhi, April 21, 2014.  

11