Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with multiple miscellaneous applications concerning the extension of time for transporting minerals mined before 15.03.2018. The applications were filed by lessees of manganese and iron ore mines, seeking additional time due to delays caused by statutory authorities and the COVID-19 lockdown. The Goa Foundation, which was the writ petitioner in earlier proceedings, sought clarification on the applicability of a previous judgment regarding the removal of minerals and the payment of royalties. The court noted that in a prior case, it had determined that all mining leases had expired on 22.11.2007, and any mining beyond that date was illegal. It also highlighted that the lessees were granted a six-month period to remove minerals excavated before 15.03.2018, which was set to expire on 30.07.2020. The court found that the lessees could remove minerals subject to royalty payment and that the right to remove was not limited to only those on which royalty had been paid prior to removal. The court dismissed the intervention application from a leaseholder who was not a party to the original appeals, stating that he could not seek the benefit of the extension. The court ultimately granted the lessees until the end of January 2021 to remove the minerals, subject to verification of quantities by government officials and payment of royalties. It also clarified that the State could invoke Rule 12(1)(hh) if the minerals were not removed within the stipulated time.
Headnote
A) Mining Law - Extension of Time - Right to Remove Mined Minerals - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 9 - The court addressed whether the right to remove minerals was limited to those on which royalty had been paid. It held that the lessees could remove minerals excavated before 15.03.2018, subject to payment of royalties, and clarified that the judgment dated 30.01.2020 had attained finality (Paras 10-19). B) Mining Law - Rule Invocation - Rule 12(1)(hh) of The Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 - The court considered whether the State should have invoked Rule 12(1)(hh) to confiscate unremoved minerals. It noted that while the State could still invoke this rule, the judgment granting six months for removal had already become final (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the right to remove mined minerals is contingent upon royalty payment and whether the State should invoke Rule 12(1)(hh) of the Rules.
Final Decision
The court granted lessees until the end of January 2021 to remove minerals excavated before 15.03.2018, subject to payment of royalties and verification of quantities by government officials. It clarified that the State could invoke Rule 12(1)(hh) if minerals were not removed within the stipulated time.
Law Points
- Extension of time
- mining leases
- royalty payment
- statutory provisions
- intervention application
