Supreme Court rules mining leases in Goa expired in 2007, upholds suspension orders

The Supreme Court held that deemed mining leases in Goa expired on 22.11.2007, rendering mining operations post that date illegal. Orders suspending mining operations were upheld. The Court recognized flaws in the Justice Shah Commission report but allowed its consideration with due process. Dumping minerals outside leased areas was deemed impermissible. Regulations on mining proximity to National Parks were reinforced. Violations of mining rules were addressed, emphasizing State Government enforcement. Environmental impact assessment and sustainable mining practices were highlighted. Future mining lease grants were subject to legal provisions. Suspension orders post-illegal operations were upheld, with directives on ore sale proceeds and fund contributions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of mining leases in Goa.
2. Legality of the Justice Shah Commission report.
3. Dumping of minerals outside leased areas.
4. Proximity of mining operations to National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
5. Violations of Rules 37 and 38 of the Mineral Concession Rules (MC Rules).
6. Control and monitoring of mining operations.
7. Environmental impact and sustainable development.
8. Future grant of mining leases.
9. Legality of suspension orders by the Government of Goa and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Mining Leases in Goa:
The Supreme Court held that the deemed mining leases in Goa expired on 22.11.1987, and the maximum renewal period of 20 years expired on 22.11.2007. Consequently, mining operations conducted by the lessees after 22.11.2007 were illegal. Therefore, the orders dated 10.09.2012 by the Government of Goa and 14.09.2012 by the MoEF suspending mining operations and environmental clearances were upheld.

2. Legality of the Justice Shah Commission Report:
The Court acknowledged that the Justice Shah Commission did not comply with Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, which require giving affected parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. However, since the State Government assured that no action would be taken based solely on the Commission's findings without due process, the report was not quashed. The Court examined the legal and environmental issues raised in the report independently.

3. Dumping of Minerals Outside Leased Areas:
The Court held that dumping of minerals outside the leased area is not permissible under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. The lessees cannot dump waste materials, tailings, and rejects outside the leased area without valid authorization. Rule 64C of the MC Rules does not authorize such dumping, and any implication to the contrary must give way to the statutory provisions of the MMDR Act.

4. Proximity of Mining Operations to National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries:
The Court enforced the order dated 04.08.2006, stating that no mining activity can occur within one kilometer of the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. The Court clarified that there was no prohibition on mining activities within 10 kilometers of these boundaries unless a notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, is issued. The MoEF was directed to issue such notifications within six months.

5. Violations of Rules 37 and 38 of the MC Rules:
The Court found that several lessees violated Rule 37 by transferring mining leases without the previous consent of the State Government. The State Government was directed to take action against these violations. Additionally, the Court held that amalgamation of leases without State Government permission, as required under Rule 38, was not permissible.

6. Control and Monitoring of Mining Operations:
The Court noted the lack of proper checks and controls in mining operations, leading to illegal mining and revenue leakage. The Goa (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage, and Transportation of Minerals) Rules, 2013, were to be strictly enforced by the State Government. The Goa State Pollution Control Board was directed to exercise its powers under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, to monitor and regulate mining activities.

7. Environmental Impact and Sustainable Development:
The Court emphasized the need for sustainable development and inter-generational equity. An Expert Committee was constituted to conduct a macro EIA study and propose a ceiling on annual excavation of iron ore. The Committee recommended a temporary cap of 20 million tons per annum until a detailed study is completed. The Court directed the creation of the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund, funded by 10% of the sale proceeds of iron ore, to ensure sustainable mining practices.

8. Future Grant of Mining Leases:
The Court held that it is within the State Government's policy discretion to decide the manner of granting mining leases, provided it complies with the MMDR Act, the Rules made thereunder, and constitutional provisions. The decision of the State Government in this regard is subject to judicial review.

9. Legality of Suspension Orders:
The suspension orders dated 10.09.2012 by the Government of Goa and 14.09.2012 by the MoEF were upheld as the mining operations after 22.11.2007 were illegal. The Court directed that the inventory of excavated ores be sold by e-auction, and the proceeds be managed as per specified guidelines, including payments towards excavation costs, worker compensation, storage charges, and contributions to the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment addresses multiple issues related to mining operations in Goa, emphasizing legal compliance, environmental protection, and sustainable development. The Court's directives aim to rectify past illegalities, enforce strict monitoring, and ensure that future mining activities align with constitutional and statutory mandates.

---