Case Note & Summary
The Goa Foundation, a public interest organization, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the State Government's decision dated 21 March 2018, which interpreted a Supreme Court direction under Article 142. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 7 February 2018, had held that 88 mining leases in Goa expired in 2007 and could not be renewed, but granted time to lease holders to manage their affairs and allowed mining operations till 15 March 2018, with a direction to stop all operations from 16 March 2018 until fresh leases and environmental clearances were granted. The State of Goa construed this direction to mean that lease holders could excavate ore till 15 March 2018, pay royalty, and transport it any time after that date. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's indulgence was limited to arranging affairs and that all activities, including transportation, must cease by 15 March 2018. The petition sought to quash the State's order. The court noted the extensive background of mining regulation in Goa, including earlier Supreme Court decisions in Goa Foundation-I and the Lithoferro case, the impact of mining on the environment, and the recommendations of the Justice Shah Commission. The matter was reserved for judgment on 27 April 2018 and pronounced on 4 May 2018. The provided excerpt of the judgment is truncated and does not contain the court's analysis or final decision, thus the outcome remains unknown from the available text.
Headnote
A) Interpretation of Court Orders - Scope of Indulgence Under Article 142 - Constitution of India, Article 142 - The Supreme Court allowed mining lease holders time till 15 March 2018 to manage their affairs and directed them to stop all mining operations from 16 March 2018; the State of Goa construed this as permitting excavation till 15 March and transportation thereafter - The High Court was called upon to determine whether this interpretation was valid; the judgment excerpt does not contain the final determination on this point (Paras 2, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government's interpretation of the Supreme Court's direction under Article 142, allowing transportation of ore after 15 March 2018, was legally correct.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Supreme Court directions under Article 142
- scope of indulgence granted to manage affairs
- validity of State's order allowing post-deadline ore transportation
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (05) 44
N.M. Jamdar, Prithviraj K. Chavan
Ms. Norma Alvares for Petitioner; Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, Advocate General with Mr. Deep Shirodkar for Respondents No. 1 to 3; Mr. Mahesh Amonkar for Respondents No. 4 and 5; Mr. S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhijit Gosavi for Respondent No. 6; Mr. D.J. Pangam with Ms. N. Pimenta for Respondents No. 7, 8 and 14; Mr. Parag Rao with Ms. Swati Kamat and Ms. Shambhavi Rao for Respondents No. 9 to 12; Mr. Y.V. Nadkarni with Mr. N. Noronha for Respondent No. 13; Mr. S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Vaze for Respondent No. 15; Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Vaze for Respondent No. 16; Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. M. Prabhuchodnekar for Respondent No. 17
The Goa Foundation, through its Secretary Dr. Claude Alvares
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation challenging the interpretation of a Supreme Court direction regarding mining leases in Goa.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner seeks to quash the State Government's order dated 21 March 2018 that allowed transportation of mined ore after 15 March 2018.
Filing Reason
The State of Goa misinterpreted the Supreme Court's direction of 7 February 2018, which allowed mining operations only till 15 March 2018, and construed it as permitting transportation after that date.
Previous Decisions
Supreme Court order dated 7 February 2018; State of Goa's decision dated 21 March 2018; earlier Supreme Court decision in Goa Foundation-I (2014) 6 SCC 590; High Court judgment in Lithoferro case dated 13 August 2014.
Issues
Whether the State Government's interpretation of the Supreme Court's direction under Article 142, allowing transportation of ore after 15 March 2018, was legally correct.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's direction only granted time to manage affairs, which must include ending all activities, including transportation, by 15 March 2018.
Respondents argued that the direction permitted excavation until 15 March and transportation thereafter.
Judgment Excerpts
The mining lease holders who have been granted the second renewal in violation of the decision and directions of this Court in Goa Foundation are given time to manage their affairs and may continue their mining operations till 15th March 2018. However, they are directed to stop all mining operations with effect from 16th March, 2018 until fresh mining leases (not fresh renewals or other renewals) are granted and fresh environmental clearances are granted.
In the impugned decision dated 21 March 2018, the State of Goa has construed this direction as a full liberty to such mining lease holders to carry out excavation of ore till 15 March 2018, pay royalty on the same and transport it any time after 15 March 2018. According to the Petitioner, this is against the indulgence granted by the Supreme Court, as time was granted only to arrange the affairs, meaning thereby all activities, including transportation, must end by 15 March 2018.
Procedural History
The PIL writ petition was filed by Goa Foundation. On 27 April 2018, the court reserved judgment, and on 4 May 2018, the court pronounced the order. Rule was made returnable forthwith, and respondents waived service.
Acts & Sections
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, 1957: Section 8(3)
- Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition and Declaration as Mining Leases) Act, 1987: Section 5(1)
- Constitution of India: Article 142
