Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a series of litigations concerning iron ore mining in Goa. The Government of India appointed Justice M.B. Shah as a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to investigate rampant exploitation of natural resources in the iron ore mining sector. Based on the Commission's reports, the Government of Goa suspended all mining operations from 11.9.2012, and the Ministry of Environment and Forest kept environmental clearances of 139 mines in abeyance. Goa Foundation filed a public interest writ petition in the Supreme Court, which was decided in Goa Foundation v. Union of India (Goa Foundation I) on 21.4.2014. The Court held that all iron ore and manganese ore leases had expired on 22.11.2007 and any mining after that was illegal. It further held that for a second renewal of a mining lease, an express order was required under Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the State Government must apply its mind and record reasons. The Court upheld the suspension of mining operations and the abeyance of environmental clearances. Subsequently, the Bombay High Court directed the State of Goa to execute lease deeds for second renewals, which was challenged in Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Limited (Goa Foundation II). On 7.2.2018, the Supreme Court quashed the second renewals granted by the State of Goa, holding them to be unduly hasty and not in the interest of mineral development. The Court directed that mining leaseholders could continue mining operations only till 15.3.2018 and must stop all mining operations from 16.3.2018. After this date, the State of Goa decided on 21.3.2018 to permit mining leaseholders to pay royalty on minerals already mined till 15.3.2018 and transport the same. Goa Foundation challenged this decision in the Bombay High Court, which on 28.3.2018 passed an interim order suspending transportation of all minerals. The Division Bench of the High Court finally held that the Supreme Court's direction to stop mining operations included a prohibition on transportation as well, and quashed the State's decision. Aggrieved, various mining leaseholders appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered the sole question whether the direction to stop mining operations also prohibited transportation of minerals already mined before 15.3.2018. The Court held that the direction in paragraph 154.6 of Goa Foundation II only restricted mining operations, not the transport of already mined minerals. The Court noted that it was nobody's case that mining continued after 15.3.2018. The State of Goa's decision to permit transport subject to payment of royalty was therefore valid. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeals, permitting the transportation of minerals already mined prior to 15.3.2018, subject to compliance with all applicable laws and payment of dues.
Headnote
A) Interpretation of Court Orders - Scope of Direction - Mining Operations vs. Transportation - The Supreme Court interpreted its earlier direction in Goa Foundation II that mining leaseholders 'stop all mining operations with effect from 16.3.2018' as only prohibiting the act of mining, not the transportation of minerals already extracted before that date. The Court held that the direction did not extend to transport of already mined ore, and the State Government was justified in permitting such transport subject to payment of royalty and other dues. (Paras 13-18) B) Mining Law - Second Renewal of Mining Leases - Section 8(3) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - The Court in Goa Foundation I (2014) 6 SCC 590 held that all iron ore and manganese ore leases in Goa had expired on 22.11.2007 and second renewal required an express order by the State Government applying its mind and recording reasons in the interest of mineral development. The second renewals granted by the State of Goa were quashed as being unduly hasty and not in the interest of mineral development. (Paras 9-11) C) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearances - Abeyance Order - The Ministry of Environment and Forests was obliged to grant fresh environmental clearances in respect of fresh grant of mining leases, not merely lift the abeyance order of 14.9.2012. The Court directed that fresh environmental clearances must be obtained for any new mining leases. (Para 11) D) Public Interest Litigation - Natural Resource Management - Custodian of Mineral Resources - The High Court had directed the State Government to take decision regarding its ownership rights as custodian of mineral resources and to take possession, sell and dispose of iron ore in question for public purpose. The Supreme Court did not interfere with this direction but clarified that the State could permit transport of already mined ore. (Paras 17-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the direction in Goa Foundation II (2018) 4 SCC 218 to stop all mining operations with effect from 16.3.2018 also prohibits the transportation of minerals that were already mined prior to 15.3.2018.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court, and held that the direction to stop mining operations from 16.3.2018 did not prohibit the transportation of minerals already mined prior to 15.3.2018. The State of Goa's decision dated 21.3.2018 permitting such transportation subject to payment of royalty and other dues was upheld. The Court directed that transportation may proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Interpretation of court orders
- Mining lease renewal
- Environmental clearances
- Commissions of Inquiry Act
- 1952
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act
- 1957
- Section 8(3) of MMDR Act
- Natural resource management
- Public interest litigation
