TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 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 e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 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 Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing lessees only on the basis of the findings in the report of the Justice Shah Commission 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 Foundati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an application being made 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 referr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. 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 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; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 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-sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot 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 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 nonsaleable minerals, such as over burden and waste material obtained during mining ope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agent, manager, employee, contractor of sublessee) 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 nonsalable 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 brou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 ecofragile 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 u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 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/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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 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';....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 ecosensitive 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ining activity within the safety zone around such areas referred to in (ii) above, (as an interim measure, one kilometre safety zone shall be maintained 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 subrule (3)." 45. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 lists the number of factors, which the Central Government has to take into consideration while prohibiting or restricting the carrying on of processes and operations in different areas. Subrule (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 subrule (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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013 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, 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dule 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. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ining leases, the payments of royalty, the permits issued for transportation of mineral by the Mining Department, the transit permits issued by the Forest Department 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 Ore Export....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nmental 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 intergenerational 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 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 m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rism 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 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) Environmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; 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 scientific study by the Expert Committee is completed in about 12 months or so, and more of data including impacts on different ecological environmental p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 pol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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 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 Benc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al 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 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 date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Rai (Nominee of Govt. of Goa) have in the meanwhile monitored the eauction. 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 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, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequently 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; (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 dire....