THE GOA FOUNDATION versus M/S SESA STERLITE LTD. & ORS.

[2018] 2 S.C.R. 361

THE GOA FOUNDATION

M/S SESA STERLITE LTD. & ORS.

(SLP (Civil) No. 32138 of 2015)

FEBRUARY 7, 2018

[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Mines and Minerals:

Mining leases – Renewal of – Propriety – Appointment ofCommission of Inquiry, pursuant to information regarding large-scale illegal mining in contravention of provisions of relevantlaws – After the report of the Commission, Govt. of Goa by orderdated 10.9.2012 suspended all the mining operations in the State –Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) kept in abeyance theenvironmental clearances in the State of Goa by order dated14.9.2012 – PIL was filed by Goa Foundation in Supreme Courtseeking directions to Governments of Union and State of Goa totake steps to terminate the mining leases where mining was carriedout in violation of various statutes – Writ petitions by mining lease-holders before High Court seeking quashing of the orders dated10.9.2012 and 14.9.2012, were transferred to Supreme Court –Supreme Court in *Goa Foundation case held that orders dated10.9.2012 and 14.9.2012 were not liable to be quashed and wouldcontinue till decisions are taken to grant fresh leases and freshenvironmental clearances for mining projects – Other writ petitionswere filed before High Court by several mining lease-holders forconsideration of their applications for second renewal of miningleases – High Court held that the decision in *Goa Foundation casewas not an impediment in considering the applications for secondrenewal; and that renewal of lease is also fresh grant – HighCourt directed the State to execute the lease deeds u/s. 8(3) of MMDRAct in favour of the lease-holders who have already paid the stampduty in accordance with Mineral Policy 2013 – Further directedthe State to decide the renewal applications u/s. 8(3), of those whohad not paid the stamp duty – State of Goa thereafter formulatedGoa Grant of Mining Leases Policy 2014 – Central Governmentprepared draft of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)

AAct, 2014 (amended Act) and uploaded the same on the website –The proposed amendment inter alia by introducing s. 10B providedfor competitive bidding – Soon thereafter and till the date ofpromulgation of Amendment Ordinance, State of Goa grantedsecond renewals to several mining lease-holders – Thereafter, theState requested MoEF to lift the abeyance order (dated 14.9.2012)Bon environmental clearances – Consequently MoEF by orders dated20.3.2015 lifted the abeyance order in respect of 72 cases out of139 – Held: The decision of State of Goa to grant second renewalof mining leases was erroneous and contrary to decision in *GoaFoundation case – State was obliged to grant fresh mining leases asCdeclaration in *Goa Foundation case was explicitly to grant freshleases – Grant of fresh lease is not the same as renewal of lease –State was not under any constitutional obligation to grant freshmining leases through process of competitive bidding or auction –However, the second renewals were unduly hasty, without takinginto consideration all relevant material and ignoring relevantDmaterial, was not in the interest of mineral development – Thedecision of renewal was only to augment the revenues of the Statewhich is outside the purview of s. 8(3) of 1957 Act – Therefore, thesecond renewal granted by the State is liable to be set aside – MoEFwas obliged to grant fresh environmental clearance in respect ofEfresh grant of mining leases in accordance with law and decision in*Goa Foundation case and not by merely lifting the abeyance orderdated 14.9.2012 – High Court proceeded on the erroneous basisthat it could direct the State to grant second renewal notwithstandingthe direction in *Goa Foundation case – Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 – s.8(3) – ForestF(Conservation) Act, 1980 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Auction:

Natural Resource allocation – Through auction method –Whether mandatory – Held: There is no constitutional or otherwiseGmandate for allocation of natural resources (other than spectrum)through auction method – But, auction process should not be givena go-bye without any justification – The decision to give go-byeis judicially reviewable and would attract Art. 14 – Review ispermissible only when the allocation is for commercial pursuits ofprofit de hors any social or welfare purpose – It will not be permissibleH

if such allocation is for social or welfare purpose – JudicialReview – Constitution of India – Art. 14.

Judicial Review:

Judicial review of policy decision – In respect of disposal ofnatural resources – Scope of – Held: Judicial review of policy iskept open if it does not serve the common good as understood inArt. 39(b) and if violates Art. 14 – However, the courts must be verycautious and circumspect in diluting or setting aside policy andmust do so only if it is constitutionally unavoidable – Constitutionof India – Arts. 14 and 39(b) – Administrative Law.

Lease:

Renewal of lease vis-a-vis grant of fresh lease – Held: Grantof fresh lease is not the same as the renewal of lease – Therefore,renewal cannot be called amounting to grant of fresh lease.

Environmental Law:

The issues having impact on the environment and the peopleof community or region or the State are required to be looked atholistically – One or two violations may be wished away asinconsequential, but multiple violations by several persons can resultin serious problems.

Disposing of the petitions, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The decision of the State of Goa to grant secondrenewal of the mining leases is erroneous, contrary to the decisionin *Goa Foundation case and must be and is quashed. In *GoaFoundation case the Court was quite obviously aware that it wasconcerned, inter alia, with the second renewal of mining leasesand yet it chose to recount the factual situation, make declarationand pass direction without adverting to the possibility of secondrenewal of mining lease. The Court was also conscious that themining lease holders had carried out indiscriminate and illegalmining for about five years (from November 2007 to September2012) and had made profits out of the illegal mining. The sequenceof events from September 2012 onwards, the appointment of aMonitoring Committee to dispose of the illegally mined ore, thedeclaration and direction unmistakably point to the intention ofthe Court to end the sordid chapter of illegal mining by the lease

Aholders and start on clean slate. Viewed in this perspective, theCourt really did intend the State of Goa to consider the grant offresh leases in accordance with law. [Paras 41, 58] [395-B-D; 400-F-G]

1.2 The declaration of the Court in *Goa Foundation caseBin paragraph 87.5 of Report is also quite clear, namely, “It is forthe State Government to decide as matter of policy in whatmanner mining leases are to be granted in future….” Thedeclaration was explicit and related to the grant of mining leasesand not second renewal. Similarly, the direction given inparagraph 88.4 of the Report that “The State Government mayCgrant mining leases of iron ore and other ores in Goa inaccordance with its policy decision…..” was equally explicit andrelated to the grant of mining leases and not second renewal.[Paras 42, 43] [395-E-F]1.3 From reading of the decision rendered by the HighDCourt in the present petition, it is evident that the State of Goaunderstood the decision of this Court in *Goa Foundation caseto mean that fresh mining leases were required to be granted onthe basis of policy yet to be framed by the State of Goa and theissue of second renewals did not survive consideration. The HighECourt noted that this Court was alive to the fact that the State ofGoa had granted in-principle second renewal to 28 mining leasesand had collected renewal fees or stamp duty from 27 miningleases (presumably out of the 28 mining leases). Notwithstandingthe in-principle grant of second renewal of 28 mining leases andcollection of renewal fees or stamp duty, this Court in *GoaFFoundation case consciously required the State of Goa to grantfresh leases. What is equally significant is that the State of Goaalso understood the decision of the Court in the same mannerand intended to act on that basis. [Paras 46-48] [396-D-E, 397-C-E, F-G]G

1.4 While this Court had required the State of Goa to grantfresh mining leases and the State of Goa was willing to complywith this direction, the High Court instead directed it to executemining leases under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act in respect ofthose who had paid the renewal fees or stamp duty. The HighHCourt also directed the State of Goa to decide their pending

second renewal applications within period of three monthskeeping in mind the provisions of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act(presumably after paying the renewal fees or stamp duty in termsof the Government order of 21[st] February, 2013). Theunderstanding by the High Court of the decision of this Court in*Goa Foundation case is totally incorrect. [Para 49] [398-A-C]

1.5 It appears from the contents of the Grant of MiningLeases Policy that in view of the decision of this Court in *GoaFoundation case, the State was actively considering policy forgranting fresh mining leases by considering several factors.However, the decision and directions of the High Courtsupervened leaving no choice, according to the State, but tocompletely abandon the process of grant of fresh mining leasesthrough the process of competitive bidding for earning revenueand justify the abandonment. [Para 50] [398-D]

1.6 There is no doubt that the renewal of lease is virtuallythe same as the grant of fresh lease but converse direction togrant mining lease cannot be understood to mean granting arenewal of mining lease. Obviously, the grant of fresh lease isnot the same as the renewal of lease and when the Court in*Goa Foundation case required the State of Goa to grant freshlease, it did not require the State to renew the existing (expired)lease. The Court could have explicitly declared and directed theState of Goa to grant second renewal of the mining leases ratherthan to say it in roundabout manner that it should do so bygranting fresh lease equivalent to renewal. Therefore, it cannotbe said that the renewal of mining lease is equivalent to oramounts to the grant of fresh lease. [Paras 52, 55] [399-F-G;400-A]

Common Cause v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 155 :[2014] 7 SCR 561 – distinguished.

Delhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand Kaushish(1973) 2 SCC 825 : [1974] 1 SCR 535; ProvashChandra Dalui v. Biswanath Banerjee (1989) Supp 1SCC 487 : [1989] 2 SCR 401; M.C. Mehta v. Union ofIndia (2004) 12 SCC 118 : [2004] 3 SCR128; State ofWest Bengal v. Calcutta Mineral Supply CompanyPrivate Limited (2015) 8 SCC 655 : [2015] 9 SCR 230;

[2018] 2 S.C.R.

AGajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1997)1 SCC 650 : [1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 172 – referred to.

2.1 There is no constitutional requirement (let alone amandate) for allocation of natural resources through the auctionmethod (other than spectrum) but at the same time the auctionBprocess should not be given go-bye without any justification –the decision to give go-bye is judicially reviewable though thescope of judicial review might be rather restricted. [Para 69] [406-C-D]

2.2 Consequently, while there is no mandate, constitutionalCor otherwise, that natural resource allocation must be only byauction, it is certainly “a more preferable method”. There areexceptions, such as when the natural resource allocation is for a“social or welfare purpose”. On the other hand if the naturalresource allocation is “for commercial pursuits of profitmaximising private entrepreneurs” de hors any social or welfareDpurpose, then judicial review would be permissible and Article14 of the Constitution would be attracted and if the executiveaction is found to be arbitrary, it would be struck down. Therefore,when it comes to natural resource allocation, the executive has asomewhat limited elbow room. [Para 69] [406-E-F]E

3.1 Judicial review of policy is kept open if it does notserve the common good as understood in Article 39(b) of theConstitution, if it violates Article 14 of the Constitution andalienates natural resources for maximizing profits of privateentrepreneurs while sidelining Article 39(b) of the Constitution.F“The legislature and the executive are answerable to theConstitution and it is there where the judiciary, the guardian ofthe Constitution, must find the contours to the powers of disposalof natural resources, especially Article 14 and Article 39(b) [ofthe Constitution]. [Para 74] [410-G; 411-A]

G3.2 Notwithstanding this, Court must exercise restraintand not set aside Government policy only because it disagreeswith it or because better policy could be framed or simplybecause it has the power to set aside the policy. Policies framedby the State, after due consideration, must be respected and givenenough elbow room and flexibility for implementation. Of course,Hthere would be occasions when the implementation of policy

has teething problems or some lacuna is discovered at slightlylater stage, but that does not mean that policy itself is defective.Therefore, Courts must be very cautious and circumspect indiluting or setting aside policy and must do so only if it isconstitutionally unavoidable, otherwise good governance couldbe casualty. [Paras 75] [411-B-C]

3.3 There is no doubt that iron ore mining in Goa was solelyfor commercial purposes. The State sacrificed maximizing revenuefor no apparent positive reason, virtually surrendering itself tothe commercial and profit making motives of privateentrepreneurs and ignoring the interests of Goan society ingeneral. Therefore, in principle, the decision of the State of Goato not auction the grant of mining leases was flawed in that it didnot serve the common or public or social good but primarilyassisted in filling the coffers of private entrepreneurs. [Para 93][419-D, F]

Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited v. State ofKarnataka (2010) 13 SCC 1 : [2010] 11 SCR 240 –distinguished.

4.1 In renewing the mining leases, the State of Goacompletely ignored several relevant and important and significantfactors giving the impression that the renewals were not quitefair or reasonable. The State ignored the fact that every singlemining lease holder had committed some illegality or the otherin varying degrees. To identify these illegalities (although theyhad already been identified by the Justice Shah Commission andby the EAC), Special Investigation Team had been set up asalso team of Chartered Accountants. Instead of waiting for areport from any one of these teams, the State acted in violation ofthe Grant of Mining Leases Policy and renewed the mining leases.[Paras 104-105] [423-F-H]

4.2 The undue haste in which the State acted gives theimpression that it was willing to sacrifice the rule of law for thebenefit of the mining lease holders and the explanation ofsatisfying the needs of some sections of society for their livelihood.The undue haste also needs to be looked at in the context thatthe Grant of Mining Lease Policy was an in-principle decisionand was to be notified after it was vetted for legal requirements

A“from specific necessities as also from financial view points”. Inother words, the Grant of Mining Leases Policy as published on4[th] November, 2014 was not final policy statement but only anintent that would take final shape after due vetting. The Grant ofMining Leases Policy was eventually published on 20[th] January,2015 but it was acted upon even before it was gazetted. [ParasB106, 107] [424-E-F; 428-G-H]

4.3 An Ordinance to amend the MMDR Act was madeknown to the general public on 5[th] January, 2015 and promulgatedby the President on 12[th] January, 2015 thereby mandatingcompetitive bidding or auction for the grant of mining leases.CThe State of Goa perhaps anticipated this in view of the publicationof the draft Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act, 2014 and therefore hurried into the second renewal of miningleases (notwithstanding the Grant of Mining Leases Policy) todefeat the introduction of the auction process. [Para 109] [425-DE-F]

4.4 The National Mineral Policy, 2008 clearly suggests thatfor period of five years between 2006 and 2012 the mining leaseholders committed various illegalities and irregularities in themining process. Irreparable damage was being caused by theEmining lease holders without any benefit to the domestic industry.Therefore, while the mining lease holders may have contributedvirtually nothing to the domestic industry, they might have madeconsiderable profits through exports and might have alsobenefited the foreign exchange reserves of the country, but thereal-time damage to the quality of health and life of the averageFGoan and damage to the environment and ecology of Goa isnevertheless incalculable or at least considerable – and exportbenefits cannot be weighed against health or the environment.[Para 113] [427-C-E]

4.5 There was no social or public purpose attached to theGmining operations. There was one and only one objective behindthe mining activity and that was profit maximization. The renewalof the mining leases would give considerable profits to the mininglease holders well beyond the benefits that could accrue to theState or to the average resident of Goa. It was not kept in mindHthat the material resources of the country should not be dissipated

free of cost or at consideration lower than their actual worth,and mining leases were renewed for small payment of stampduty and royalty. It is therefore clear that the considerations thatweighed with the State were not for the people of Goa but werefor the mining lease holders. This certainly cannot be describedas being “in the interests of mineral development.”[Para 114][427-F-H]

Special Reference No. 1 – Natural Resources Allocation(2012) 10 SCC 1 : [2012] 9 SCR 311 – relied on.

4.6 In this background, there is little to suggest that theState considered the requirements of Section 8(3) of the MMDRAct in that the interests of mineral development was secondarywhile granting the second renewal of mining leases. The entireexercise undertaken by the State was hasty charade, regardlessof violations of the law by the mining lease holders, without anybenefit to the Indian industry and without any concern for thehealth of the average Goan. [Para 116] [428-C]

4.7 It is informed that of the 88 mining leases that wererenewed, 38 of them are not working for variety of reasons –making their renewal an empty exercise. This also shows theundue haste shown by the State of Goa in granting secondrenewal to the mining leases. [Paras 121, 122] [430-A-B]

4.8 It is possible that the State did have some seriousgovernance issues to contend with as mentioned in the Grant ofMining Leases Policy. Nevertheless the State is bound by thelaw, however uncomfortable it might be in granting secondrenewal in terms of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. Therefore,on an overall consideration of all aspects of the case, the decisionof the State of Goa to quickly renew the mining leases whileostensibly complying with the requirements of Section 8(3) ofthe MMDR Act and thereby jettisoning the rule of law wasunjustified. [Paras 123, 124] [430-D-E, H; 431-A-B]

4.9 Thus, the second renewal of the mining leases grantedby the State of Goa was unduly hasty, without taking all relevantmaterial into consideration and ignoring available relevantmaterial and therefore not in the interests of mineral development.The decision was taken only to augment the revenues of the State

Awhich is outside the purview of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act.The second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State ofGoa is liable to be set aside and is quashed. [Para 149] [440-B-C]

5.1 The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) wasobliged to grant fresh environmental clearances in respect of freshBgrant of mining leases in accordance with law and the decision ofthis Court in *Goa Foundation case and not merely lift theabeyance order of 14[th] September, 2012. [Para 149] [440-D]

*Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 590 :[2014] 5 SCR 302; Goa Foundation v. Union of IndiaC(2014) 6 SCC 738; State of M.P. v. Krishnadas Tikaram1995 Supp (1) SCC 587 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 747 –relied on.

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India(2012) 3 SCC 1: [2012] 3 SCR 147; Manohar LalSharma v. Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 516 :D[2014] 8 SCR 446; M/s. Ajar Enterprises PrivateLimited v. Satyanarayan Somani 2017 (10) SCALE 346;Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1996) 9SCC 709 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 808; Property Owners’Association v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 7 SCC 522 –Ereferred to.

5.2 The MoEF acted without any application of mind inlifting the order placing all the environmental clearances inabeyance. Since the entire exercise carried out by the MoEF on20[th] March, 2015 was mechanical, at the behest of the State ofFGoa, without due application of mind, without considering themultiple illegalities and irregularities committed by the mininglease holders or passing on the buck to the State of Goa andwithout considering relevant material such as the report of theEAC and the Expert Committee appointed by this Court, theexercise of lifting the abeyance order on 20[th] March, 2015 by theGMoEF must be held void and as directed by the Court in GoaFoundation case all the mining lease holders must obtain freshenvironmental clearance for their mining project. [Para 136] [435-C-E]

5.3 Issues impacting society are required to be looked atHholistically and not in disaggregated manner. An overall

perspective is necessary on such issues including issues thathave impact on the environment and the people of communityor region or the State. One or two violations here and theremay be wished away as inconsequential, but multiple violationsby several persons can result in serious problems. Therefore,the Mineral Policy, the Grant of Mining Leases Policy, theamendment to the MMDR Act, the report of the EAC and thereport of the Expert Committee must be considered in the largercontext of constitutionalism, the rule of law, environmentaljurisprudence as well as the fundamental right of the people ofGoa to have clean air and protection of the fragile ecology.Governance cannot and should not be carried out de hors theinterests of the people and some uncomfortable decisions maybe inevitable for balancing the equities. [Para 138] [436-B-E]

5.4 It is not correct to say that if environmental clearanceis granted and mining operations commence within the five yearperiod, then the environmental clearance under EIA 1994 is validtill the project or the mining lease period is over. Such viewoverlooks the decisions in # M. C. Mehta case and ## CommonCause case which accept the view that the validity of anenvironmental clearance granted under EIA 1994 is only five yearsas also the view that valid environmental clearance is necessaryfor the renewal of mining lease. No notification of the MoEFcan overrule decisions of this Court. As far as EIA 2006 isconcerned, this provides that the environmental clearance wouldbe valid for the estimated project life subject to maximum of 30years. [Para 145] [438-E-G]

# M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004) 12 SCC 118 :

[2004] 3 SCR 128;

## Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 499– referred to.

5.5 The renewal of lease, whether under the provisionsof the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or otherwise cannot begranted without the lease holder complying with the necessarystatutory requirements particularly since the grant of renewal isa fresh grant and must be consistent with law. [Para 132] [433-G;434-A]

Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC

ABC

A213 : [1987] 1 SCR 562; Rural Litigation andEntitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (1989) Supp 1 SCC504 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 690;State of M.P. v.Krishnadas Tikaram (1995) Supp 1 SCC 587 : [1994]3 Suppl. SCR 747 – relied on.

B6. The High Court proceeded on the erroneous basis thatit could direct the State of Goa to grant second renewal of themining leases notwithstanding the direction in *Goa Foundationcase. [Para 148] [439-F]

S. N. Mohanty v. Union of India 2012 SCC OnLineCDel 4000 – distinguished.

Case Law Reference

[2014] 5 SCR 302(2014) 6 SCC 738[1974] 1 SCR 535D[1989] 2 SCR 401[2004] 3 SCR128[2015] 9 SCR 230

[1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 172

E[2014] 7 SCR 561[2012] 3 SCR 147[2014] 8 SCR 446[2012] 9 SCR 311

F2017 (10) SCALE 346[2010] 11 SCR 240[1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 808(2017) 9 SCC 499

G[1987] 1 SCR 562[1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 690[1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 7472012 SCC OnLine Del 4000H(2013) 7 SCC 522

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 32138 of 2015.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2014 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay, Panji Bench at Goa in WP No. 293 of 2014

WITH

SLP (C) No. 32699-32727 of 2015.

W. P. (C) Nos.711 and 720 of 2015.

Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Chander Uday Singh, DariusKhambata, Mukul Rohtagi, Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Advs., Prashant Bhushan,Pranav Sachdeva, O. Kuttan, Ms. Neha Rathi, Sanjay Parikh, Ms. AnithaShenoy, Ms. Mamta Saxena, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Pranav Sachdeva,Ms. Neha Rathi, Rohit Kumar Singh, Merusagar Samantaray, SalvadorS. Rebello, Ms. Viddushi, Ms. Lhinghneviah, Ms. Sneha S. PrabhuTendulkar, Ms. Nivedita Nair, Abhishek Bhardwaj, Divya Prakash Pandey,Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Rukmani Bobde, G.S. Makker, PratapVenugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Naval Aggarwal, Anuj Sarma,Ms. Niharika, Aman Shukla, Ms. Kanika Kalaiyarasan (for M/S. K JJohn And Co.), Sumit Goel, Tanuj Agarwal (for M/s. Parekh & Co.),Yashraj Singh Deora, Ms. Swati Kamat, Ms. Parag Rao, Ms. AsmitaSingh, Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Ms. Ragya V. Singh, Ninad Laud, Ivo D’Costa,Jayant Mohan, Abhijit Gosavi, Rohan Sharma, Karan Mathur, AnjumanTripathy, Sumit Goel, Tanuj Agarwal (for M/s. Parekh & Co.), YashrajSingh Deora, Ms. Swati Kamat, Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Sanjana Saddy,Ms. Ragya V. Singh, Nikhil Vaze, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Rudresh Desai,Jayant Mohan, P. Chaitanyashil, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Rapacious and rampant exploitationof our natural resources is the hallmark of our iron ore mining sector -coupled with total lack of concern for the environment and the healthand well-being of the denizens in the vicinity of the mines. The solemotive of mining lease holders seems to be to make profits (no matterhow) and the attitude seems to be that if the rule of law is required to beput on the backburner, so be it. Unfortunately, the State is unable tofirmly stop violations of the law and other illegalities, perhaps with aview to maximize revenue, but without appreciating the long term impactof this indifference. Another excuse generally put forth by the State isthat of development, conveniently forgetting that development must besustainable and equitable development and not otherwise.

A2. Effective implementation and in some instances circumventionof the mining and environment related laws is tragedy in itself. Laxityand sheer apathy to the rule of law gives mining lease holders fieldday, being the primary beneficiaries, with the State being left with somecrumbs in the form of royalty. For the State to generate adequate revenuethrough the mining sector and yet have sustainable and equitableBdevelopment, the implementation machinery needs tremendous amountof strengthening while the law enforcement machinery needs strictvigilance. Unless the two marry, we will continue to be mute witnessesto the plunder of our natural resources and left wondering how to retrievean irretrievable situation.

3. The Government of India appears to have received informationof large-scale illegal mining of iron ore and manganese ore in differentStates in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (the MMDR Act), the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 andDother rules and guidelines issued on the subject from time to time.

4. Acting on this information, the Government of India appointedJustice M.B. Shah former judge of this Court as commission ofinquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 by anotification dated 22[nd] November, 2010. The terms of reference of theECommission for the State of Goa were as follows:

2. The terms of reference of the Commission shall be -

(i) to inquire into and determine the nature and extent of miningand trade and transportation, done illegally or without lawfulauthority, of iron ore and manganese ore, and the lossestherefrom; and to identify, as far as possible, the persons, firms,companies and others that are engaged in such mining, tradeand transportation of iron ore and manganese ore, done illegallyor without lawful authority;

(ii) to inquire into and determine the extent to which themanagement, regulatory and monitoring systems have failedto deter, prevent, detect and punish offences relating to mining,storage, transportation, trade and export of such ore, doneillegally or without lawful authority, and the persons responsiblefor the same;

(iii) to inquire into the tampering of official records, includingrecords relating to land and boundaries, to facilitate illegal miningand identify, as far as possible, the persons responsible forsuch tampering; and

(iv) to inquire into the overall impact of such mining, trade,transportation and export, done illegally or without lawfulauthority, in terms of destruction of forest wealth, damage tothe environment, prejudice to the livelihood and other rights oftribal people, forest dwellers and other persons in the minedareas, and the financial losses caused to the Central and StateGovernments.

3. The Commission shall also recommend remedial measuresto prevent such mining, trade, transportation and export doneillegally or without lawful authority.”

5. Justice Shah visited Goa and after calling for and receivinginformation from the concerned authorities as well as the mining leaseholders, he submitted report on 15[th] March, 2012 and another on 25[th]April, 2012 to the Ministry of Mines in the Government of India. Thereports were tabled in Parliament on 7[th] September, 2012 along with anAction Taken Report and as result, the Government of Goa passed anorder dated 10[th] September, 2012 suspending all mining operations in theState with effect from 11[th] September, 2012. The Ministry of Environmentand Forests (MoEF) of the Government of India acted similarly andkept in abeyance the environmental clearances granted to 139 mines(actually 137 mines – there is some duplication) in the State of Goa byan order dated 14[th] September, 2012.

6. Subsequent to the reports given by Justice Shah, writ petitionwas filed by Goa Foundation in this Court being WP (C) No. 435 of2012. The writ petition was public interest litigation praying, inter alia,for directions to the Union of India and the State of Goa to take steps toterminate the mining leases where mining was carried out in violation ofvarious statutes.

7. Similarly, several mining lease holders preferred writ petitionsin the Bombay High Court for declaration that the reports given byJustice Shah are illegal and also for quashing the orders dated 10[th]September, 2012 and 14[th] September, 2012 whereby mining operationswere suspended and environmental clearances were kept in abeyance.

AThe writ petitions filed in the High Court were transferred to this Courtfor hearing along with WP (C) No. 435 of 2012.

8. This Court heard all these matters and rendered its decision inGoa Foundation v. Union of India on 21[st] April 2014.[1] Among otherconclusions arrived at, it was held by the Court that all the iron ore andBmanganese ore leases had expired on 22[nd] November, 2007.Consequently, any mining operation carried out by the mining lease holdersafter that date was illegal. It was also held that all the mining leaseholders had enjoyed first deemed renewal of the mining lease and fora second renewal an express order was required to be passed in view ofand in terms of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. For second renewalCof the mining lease, it was held that the State Government must apply itsmind and record reasons for renewal being in the interest of mineraldevelopment and the necessity to renew the mining lease. Any decisiontaken by the State Government should also be in conformity with theconstitutional provisions. The decision taken by the State of Goa to grantDa mining lease in particular manner or to particular party could beexamined by way of judicial review. It was also held that the ordersdated 10[th] September, 2012 and 14[th] September, 2012 are not liable to bequashed and that they would continue till decisions are taken to grantfresh leases and fresh environmental clearances for mining projects.

EGoa Mineral Policy 2013

9. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Court, theState of Goa announced the draft Goa Mineral Policy on 21[st] August,2012. After suggestions etc. were received, the Mineral Policy wasfinalized and gazetted on 28[th] September, 2013.

10.A few salient features of the Mineral Policy may be mentioned.It isstated in the Preamble to the Mineral Policy: “The Goan economyis heavily dependent on the iron ore industry insofar as the major shareof the regional income from the mineral industry and its allied activitieslike transport and trade is concerned.”

G“However, during the period from 2006-07 to 2011-12, due tohuge spurt in demand of low grade ore in international marketfollowed by illegalities and irregularities in the previousregulatory regime, the State has witnessed the peak of chaoticand unregulated mining without any concern for fragile ecology

H1 (2014) 6 SCC 590

and environment of the State or for the general well being of anaverage Goan. It has resulted in massive export of unaccountedore from unidentified sources like dumps and tailings. Thereckless exploitation without any concern for sustainabilitythat the State has witnessed in last five years has seriousimplications. Minerals are finite and non-renewable naturalresource and must be exploited wisely in the larger interest ofthe State.

It is high time that the new Government that has received anunprecedented mandate from the people of Goa should take notethat dependence on mining presents extreme externalities andthe State has to tread cautiously promoting sustainableextraction regime to facilitate systematic, scientific andplanned utilization of mineral resources and to streamlinemineral based development of the State, keeping in view,protection of environment, health and safety of the people in andaround the mining areas rather than race to bottom.” [Emphasissupplied by us].11. Notwithstanding this serious indictment of the pre-existing‘policy’ for mining natural resources in Goa, the Mineral Policy did notaddress itself to the allocation or distribution of the natural resources inany of its 20 paragraphs and many sub-paragraphs. The topics dealtwith in the Mineral Policy include objectives and parameters, sustainablemining and mineral conservation, mineral administration, regulation ofmines and minerals, pollution and its social impact, and policy highlights.Some of the other topics dealt with in the Mineral Policy include capping,based on carrying capacity of public roads and to protect inter-generational equity, mines safety and rehabilitation of affected people,stakeholder participation (including corporate social responsibility), welfareand social responsibilities and establishment of the Goa MineralsDevelopment Fund etc.

12. However, what is of some significance is that paragraphs 1.4.4and 1.4.5 of the Mineral Policy state that Goan iron ore is low grade,that is having low iron (or Fe) content and that its extraction provides noor minimal domestic value addition. Almost all the iron ore extracted inGoa is exported and we were informed that only one mining lease holdercaptively consumes Goan extracted iron ore. Paragraphs 1.4.4 and 1.4.5of the Mineral Policy read as follows:

A“1.4.4 No Domestic Value Addition: The nature of Goan iron oreis such that value addition opportunities in the domestic marketare minimal. The Chinese and Japanese use Goan iron ore forblending purposes to bring down the average cost of iron ore,whereas Indian steel producers have wide range of high gradefines to choose from. Despite the closure of miningBoperations in the neighbouring State of Karnataka, Goaniron ore is not used in Indian Steel Industry due to its lowFe content.

1.4.5. Low Grade v/s High Grade: Goan iron ore has alwaysbeen of low grade Fe content in comparison with that of Odisha,CJharkhand and Karnataka. The low grade of ore has beencompetitive in global markets, because of the non relianceon railways and close distances of mines to ports therebyreducing the overall cost. The high silica presence in Goanore also is favourable factor for preference for Goan ore overDAustralian and Brazilian low grade ore.” [Emphasis supplied byus].

13.It appears from the above that the extraction of iron ore inGoa is geared only towards export and not for domestic purposes becauseof the low Fe content and high silica presence.EVishwanath Anand Expert Appraisal Committee

14. During the pendency of the writ petition in the Court, the MoEFconstituted an Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) on 21[st] March, 2013with Shri Vishwanath Anand, former Secretary in the MoEF as theChairman to specifically look into issues related to illegal mining in theFState of Goa. The terms of reference of the EAC were as follows:

(a) To examine the information/documents submitted by eachof the 139 project proponents in response to aforesaid directiondated 14[th] September, 2012 under Environment (Protection) Act,1986 for keeping environment clearance in abeyance and makingGcase-by-case recommendations to the MoEF;[2]

(b) To evaluate status of compliance with respect to conditionsstipulated as part of environment clearance;

(c) xxx xxx xxx

H2 Actually 137 project proponents – there is some duplication

(d) To examine the observations relating to MoEF in Justice ShahCommission report on illegal mining of iron and manganese orein the State of Goa and make appropriate recommendations.

15. The EAC gave its report sometime in October 2013 with regardto 137 mining leases. Very briefly, the EAC found many of the mininglease holders had: (i) No approval from the National Board of Wildlife;or (ii) Indulged in excess mining; or (iii) Indulged in dump mining; or (iv)Intersected groundwater level; or (v) No clearance from the CentralGround Water Board to draw ground water; or (vi) No forest clearance.We may also note that the EAC also recommended the revocation ofenvironmental clearance granted to several mining lease holders for avariety of reasons.

16.The Mineral Policy and the report of the EAC were perhapsplaced before the Court in the writ petition filed by Goa Foundation andthe transferred cases, but not dealt with, except for brief mention ofthe Mineral Policy.

17. All the cases before the Court were heard quite extensively inSeptember, October and November 2013. Judgment was reserved on11[th] November, 2013 and pronounced on 21[st] April, 2014. Some of theconclusions arrived at by the Court relevant for our discussions havealready been mentioned above.

18. At this stage, it may be mentioned that on 11[th] November,2013 read with an order dated 18[th] November, 2013[3] this Court constitutedan Expert Committee “to conduct macro EIA study on what should bethe ceiling of annual excavation of iron ore from the State of Goaconsidering its iron ore resources and its carrying capacity keeping inmind the principles of sustainable development and intergenerational equityand all other relevant factors.” The members of the Expert Committeewere:

1.Dr. C.R. Babu (Ecologist)

2.Dr S.C. Dhiman (Geologist/Hydrogeologist)

3.Prof. B.K. Mishra (Mineralogist)

4.Prof. S. Parameswarappa (Forestry)

5.Shri Parimal Rai (nominee of the Ministry of Environment

and Forests, Government of India).

3 Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 738 and Goa Foundation v. Unionof India, WP (C) No. 435 of 2012

A19.The Expert Committee submitted an Interim Report dated 14[th]March, 2014 to the Court after considering reports prepared by the TataEnergy Research Institute (TERI), New Delhi (1997); TERI andInternational Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada (2006);MoEF (2014); research papers prepared by the Goa University and theNational Institute of Oceanography; Indian Institute of Technology (IndianBSchool of Mines), Dhanbad (2013); Pollution Control Board, Goa (AnnualReport) and other literature. It noted large-scale degradation of theenvironment in Goa due to mining operations. Final Report was alsosubmitted by the Expert Committee to the Court on or about 12[th] April,2015 - it was obviously not available to the Court.COther proceedings in the High Court

20.Quite independent of the cases pending in this Court, writpetitions were filed by several mining lease holders in the Bombay HighCourt praying either for consideration of their application for secondrenewal of the mining lease or for the grant of mining lease on secondDrenewal. The High Court heard those writ petitions and delivered itsjudgment on 13[th] August, 2014.[4] In the course of its judgment, the HighCourt referred to the Mineral Policy and observed:

“The State Government also framed Goa Mineral Policy, 2013,which was duly gazetted on 28[th] September, 2013 and was placedEon record before the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) 435/2012. The State Government, in terms of this policy, in principle,agreed to renew 28 leases. These leaseholders were also askedto pay stamp duty. In some cases, after payment of the stampduty, decision under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act was takenFto renew the leases and that decision is also gazetted. Thus, thepetitions are classified in three categories mentioned hereinbelow:

(A) Where there is notification issued in the Official Gazetteafter taking decision for renewal;

(B) Where there is decision for renewal and there is stampduty collected; and

G(C) Where there are renewal applications made and are stillpending.

All the petitioners initially sought directions to the StateGovernment to decide their applications for renewal filed in the

H4 Lithoferro v. State of Goa, MANU/MH/1292/2014 = 2014 SCC OnLIne Bom 997

year 2007. However, the petitions which fell in the first twocategories were subsequently amended and directions weresought against the Government to execute second renewal leasedeeds.”

21.In its decision, the High Court held: (i) The decision of thisCourt [in Goa Foundation] is not an impediment on the State of Goa inconsidering the applications filed by the petitioners before the High Courtfor second renewal of the mining lease. On the contrary, the decisioncasts an obligation on the Government of Goa to consider all theapplications for renewal under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act; (ii)Consideration of the applications should be in accordance with the MineralPolicy, the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunderand in accordance with constitutional provisions; (iii) The expression‘fresh leases’ occurring in paragraph 67 (82) of the decision of this Court[in Goa Foundation] is an affirmation of the law that the renewal of alease is also fresh grant. For arriving at this conclusion, the High Courtplaced reliance on State of M.P. v. Krishnadas Tikaram.[5]

The High Court finally held:

“In the case in hand, admittedly, all the petitioners have madeapplications for second renewal within the time limit i.e. beforeexpiry of the term of first renewal of the mining leases. Themining plans for the second renewal, thereafter, came to beapproved by the IBM. The IBM also recorded its subjectivesatisfaction that the same is in the interest of mineraldevelopment. Thus, there is enough material on record to showthat the Government agreed to grant the second renewal ofmining leases under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act andthereafter amended the Stamp Act and directed some of thepetitioners to pay the stamp duty and even accepted the same.Thus, the Government gave promise that the mining leaseswould be executed under Section 8(3) and pursuant to thepromise, the petitioners altered their position by depositing thehuge stamp duty. Therefore, it is now not open for theGovernment to resile from the promise as it is estopped by thedoctrine of promissory estoppel from doing so. The petitionerslegitimately expected that after payment of the stamp duty, theGovernment would execute the second leases under Section

A8(3) of the MMDR Act. In our considered opinion, the principleof promissory estoppel is squarely applicable to the facts ofthe present case. The Government is reluctant to execute thelease deeds under Section 8(3) only on the ground that it is notopen for it to do so in the light of the Apex Court judgment inWrit Petition (C) No. 435/2012. We have already held that theBSupreme Court judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 435/2012 isnot an impediment in the Government’s way in executing theleases in terms of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act.”

22. In view of the above conclusions, the High Court passed thefollowing orders:C

“(I) The Respondent-State of Goa is directed to execute thelease deeds under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act in favour ofthe petitioners/lease holders who/which have already paid thestamp duty pursuant to the orders of the Government, inaccordance with the Goa Mineral Policy, 2013 placed before theDSupreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 435/2012 and subjectto the conditions laid down by the Apex Court in the said WritPetition.

(II) So far as the petitioners/lease holders who/which have notpaid the stamp duty are concerned, the Respondent-State of GoaEis directed to decide their renewal applications under Section8(3), as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within periodof three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

23. Two petitions for special leave have been filed directed againstthe judgment and order passed by the High Court on 13[th] August, 2014Fbeing SLP (C) No. 32138 of 2015 and SLP (C) Nos. 32699-32727 of2015 and these are also before us.

Goa Grant of Mining Leases Policy 2014

24. Keeping in mind the orders and directions passed by this Courtand the High Court, the State of Goa formulated the Goa Grant of MiningGLeases Policy 2014. We were informed by the learned Additional SolicitorGeneral that the Grant of Mining Leases Policy was approved by theCouncil of Ministers of the Goa State Cabinet on 1[st] October, 2014. Itwas issued on 4[th] November, 2014 and placed on the website of theDirectorate of Mines and Geology of the Government of Goa on theHsame day. However, it was gazetted on 20[th] January, 2015 with two

paragraphs deleted from the document issued on 4[th] November, 2014.The two deleted paragraphs are indicated below.

25. The Grant of Mining Leases Policy makes for some veryimportant and interesting reading and includes an impassioned plea forrejecting the process of competitive bidding of mining leases for thetime being. It also contains the statement made by the Chief Ministeron the floor of the Goa State Legislative Assembly. While the Grant ofMining Leases Policy is large document, it is necessary to read relevantextracts from it since it indicates the factors that went into taking thepolicy decision and also to appreciate if there was any violation of Article14 of the Constitution. The relevant extracts read as under:

Background.–– In accordance with the Directions contained inthe judgment and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated21[st] April, 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.435 of 2012, theHon’ble Supreme Court has declared that all the Mining Leasesin the State of Goa have expired on 22[nd] November, 2007.….

It has further been directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court thatit is for the State Government to decide as matter of Policy,in what manner Mining Leases are to be granted in thefuture…..

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in its Judgment and Order dated21[st] April, 2014 clearly held that the action of allowing the minesto be run on Deemed Extension Basis from the years 2007 to2012 was completely illegal and has further declared that the so-called deemed mining leases in the State of Goa have expired inthe year 2007…..

Few things emerge out of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Order.In the first place, the mining leases have been held to haveexpired in the year 2007. In the second place, the StateGovernment has been directed, in accordance with itspolicy to grant fresh leases in the State.

With these, the options available with the State Government areas follows:–

The State Government can directly auction the leases inorder to secure the best returns for the grant of leases by way ofa competitive bidding process,

(a)The State Government can also form State Corporationand undertake the mining activities through the State MineralDevelopment Corporation.

(b)The State Government could also proceed to grant freshleases, in terms of the MMRD Act by the following theprocess of preferential grant of leases to certain personsas specified in the MMRD Act.

(c) Yet another option available to the State Government wasto decide the renewal applications which were pending sincethe year 2006 and which had remained without any disposal.

Each of the aforesaid modes has its own merits and de-merits….

While the State Government was in the process of deliberatingon all these issues at various levels, the judgment and order ofthe Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition filed by certain leaseholders came to be delivered on 13[th] August, 2014 whereby theHon’ble High Court has directed the execution of the LeaseDeeds under Section 8(3) of the MMRD Act in favour of thelease holders who have already paid the stamp duty pursuant toOrders of the State Government in accordance with the GoaMineral Policy, 2013, placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Courtand subject to the conditions…..

This judgment and order of the Hon’ble High Courtvirtually leaves no choice to the State Government, therebyto completely abandon the process of competitive bedding[bidding] for earning the best revenue to the StateGovernment. While this was the position taken by the StateGovernment in the Goa Mineral Policy, 2013, and theHon’ble High Court has interpreted the Order of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.435/2012, the StateGovernment in view of Hon’ble High Court order, has forthe present ruled out the process of going for competitivebidding. The State Government is considering actively, withinits Constitutional powers and functions, to come out withregulatory and controlling measures and levy and collectappropriate returns having regard to the fact that the soilcomprising the land belongs to the State…. The StateGovernment has also commenced the inquiry and investigation

into the violations of matters under Rule 37 and 38 of the MineralConcession Rules, 1960 as directed by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt….

As is seen from the aforesaid, the Judgment and order of theHon’ble High Court is an intervening circumstance inasmuch asit directs the execution of Lease Deeds in 28 cases andconsideration of the Application under Section 8(3) by the StateGovernment in the other cases….

In the considered Opinion of the State Government, it would befutile to challenge the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court beforethe Hon’ble Apex Court as that would once again delay thecommencement of the Mining Operations. As matter of fact, asubstantial portion of the State’s Revenue comes from the MiningSector. The State has been virtually starved of funds forundertaking many activities including Infra-structural Projects;and on account of the stopping of the Mining Operation, theState had to walk tight-rope as there has been no Revenuecoming from one of the major source of Revenue….

Having regard to the aforesaid, the State Government thought itproper to act in accordance with the Directions of the Hon’bleSupreme Court by balancing the equities, needs; as also tosub-serve the Public Interest and by having sustainabledevelopment by protecting the Ecological and all otherfactors.

Policy Framework.–– The State Government has beenconsidering and deliberating the entire matter, and thought itproper having regard to the facts that:

(a) The Mining Lease Holders had applied for the SecondRenewal well within time.

(b) The fact that the Applications of the Mining lease holders forthe Second Renewal were not disposed off by the then StateGovernment and for which the Lease Holders cannot be blamed.

(c) Having further regard to the fact that 27 mining Lease Holdersdespite the closure of the mining operations, when called by theState to do so within the period, have paid the Stamp Duty; asalso, other levies.

(d) Such payments helped the State Government to override thefinancial crisis at that point of time.

(e) Having regard to the fact that large number of labour staffemployed with these lease holders.

(f) That concerned Mining Lease Holders have invested heavilyinto the development of Mines; as also, into the Machinery suchas Ripper Dozers, Cranes, wheel loader, Beneficiation plants etc.

(g) Other methods are not as suitable as this method for variousreasons listed [in] Hon’ble Chief Minister statement to the Houselisted above.

The State Government after having considered the matter fromevery possible angle, has decided to exercise its Power underSection 8(3) of the Mines and Mineral Regulations andDevelopment Act, 1957, and to consider each of the cases ontheir own merits and subject to compliance with the Conditionswhich may be laid down by the State Government including forstrict Pollution Control measures, and thereafter take decisionon the renewal in terms of Section 8(3) of the MMRD Act, 1957,complying fully with the Procedure laid down therein.

Though the State Government has in principle decided to followthe route of the renewal of Lease under Section 8(3) of theMMRD Act, it shall be subject to the following:-

Unless and until the Inquiry initiated pursuant to the Judgmentand Order of the Honourable Supreme Court of India againstthose Mine Lease Holders found to be violating either Rule 37or Rule 38 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960, or otherwiseindicted in the Report of the Justice Shah Commission/PACreport or found to be engaged in, any kind of illegality ofwhatsoever nature such as illegal Sale of Ore, Sale of RoyaltyChallan without Ore, Encroachment of adjoining areas outsidethe lease over production in excess of the limit specified in theEnvironmental Clearance; those which have undertakenunscientific mining operations; those who have violated or havenot paid the Royalty amount; those who have re-used old RoyaltyChallans for defrauding; and those involved in Illegal MiningActivities shall not be considered for renewal of the MiningLeases.

For this purpose, presently the inquiries are in progress atvarious levels and foras including the investigation by the SITTeam, by the Team of Chartered Accountants which have beenset up by the State Government and after the Inquiry is completeor during the course of the inquiry where it is found that anyviolations have taken place, such persons shall not beconsidered for Grant/Renewal of the Leases…..

Those Mining Lease Holders who have paid Stamp Duty,in which there are no violations found in terms of Mr.Justice Shah Inquiry/Public Accounts Committee Report,shall be considered for Renewal. [Deleted from the gazettedPolicy].

The formation of the entire Policy is aimed that it is required tobalance various interests having regard to the Principle ofSustainable Development; but by keeping in mind the commercialinterest of the present state of economy, the interest of the labourclass, the interest of the working class including other staff, theinterest of the market in the Mining Localities, the interest of thePublic Sector, the interest of the existing Mining Lease Holdersand the overall welfare needs of the State; and require all urgentinfrastructural development. By balancing all these interests thepresent Policy has been formulated by the State Government.”

The above policy is in principle decision of the StateGovernment and will be vetted for exact legalrequirements from specific necessities as also fromfinancial view points and notified thereafter.”[6] [Deleted fromthe gazetted Policy]. [Emphasis supplied by us].

26.Around this time, and pursuant to the Budget Speech given bythe Hon’ble Minister of Finance of the Government of India on 10[th] July,2014 it appears that steps were being taken by the concerned Ministryin the Government of India to amend the MMDR Act.[7] In fact draft

6http://www.goadmg.gov.in/Uploads/288.pdf

7 122. “It is my Government’s intention to encourage investment in mining sector andpromote sustainable mining practices to adequately meet the requirements of industrywithout sacrificing environmental concerns. The current impasse in mining sector,including, iron ore mining, will be resolved expeditiously. Changes, if necessary, inthe MMDR Act, 1957 would be introduced to facilitate this.” [Emphasis suppliedby us].

AMines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 2014 wasprepared on or about 16[th] November, 2014 and uploaded on the websiteof the Ministry of Mines on 17[th] November, 2014. This information wasplaced before us from the response given by the Hon’ble Minister ofMines to Unstarred Question No. 2485 to be answered in the Lok Sabhaon 8[th] December, 2014. The question was:B

(a) whether the Government proposes to formulate new policyon grant of mining leases for various minerals by amending theMines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957;

(b) if so, the details thereof along with the time by which theCnew policy is likely to be implemented;

And the answer was:

(a) & (b): Yes Madam. The Ministry has drafted the Mines andMinerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) (Amendment)Bill, 2014, which has been uploaded on the website of the MinistryDon 17.11.2014, calling for comments/suggestions on the draft Bill.The last date for receipt of the comments/suggestions is 10thDecember 2014. Based on the comments/suggestions receivedthe draft Bill will be finalized and taken forward for introductionin the Parliament.

EThe Bill is designed to put in place mechanisms for: (i) Improvedtransparency in the allocation of mineral resources; (ii) Obtainingfor the government its fair share of the value of such resources;(iii) Attracting private investment and the latest technology; and(iv) Eliminating delay in administration, so as to enable expeditiousand optimum development of the mineral resources of the country.F

27.What was the nature of the proposed amendments? As far aswe are concerned, the introduction of Section 10B in the MMDR Act(relating to competitive bidding) is significant and this reads:

“Mining leases for notified mineralsG

10B. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in thisAct, but subject to the provisions of Section 10A and Section17A, the procedure for obtaining mining lease for notifiedminerals in respect of land in which the minerals vest in theGovernment shall be as laid down in this Section.

(2) and (3) xxx

(4) For the purpose of granting mining lease in respect of anynotified mineral in such notified area, the State Government shallselect, through auction by method of competitive bidding,including e-auction, an applicant who satisfies the eligibilityconditions.

(5) The Central Government shall prescribe the terms andconditions, and procedure, subject to which the auction will beconducted, including the bidding parameters for the selection,which could include share in the production of the mineral, orany payment linked to the royalty payable, or any other relevantparameter, or any combination or modification of them.

(6) and (7) xxx”

[Iron ore was proposed as notified mineral in the draft statute].

28. Immediately after 4[th] November, 2014 (the date on which theGrant of Mining Leases Policy was uploaded on the website of theGovernment of Goa) the State Government commenced granting secondrenewal of the mining leases from 5[th] November, 2014 onwards and thatprocess was completed on 12[th] January, 2015. The following table givesthe dates of second renewal of 88 mining leases granted by the StateGovernment on or before 12[th] January, 2015:

Sr. No.Date of renewal orderNumber of renewal orderspassed1.5.11.201452.6.11.201453.7.11.201434.10.12.201435.24.12.2014106.1.1.201537.2.1.201538.5.1.201529.6.1.20152210.9.1.2015111.12.1.201531TOTAL = 88

A29. The date of 12[th] January, 2015 is significant since on that datethe President promulgated the Mines and Minerals (Development andRegulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 (which was later enacted byParliament) whereby the grant of mining leases for notified mineralswas through competitive bidding or the auction process. It is importantto mention here that the approval of the Ordinance by the Cabinet of theBGovernment of India became public knowledge on 5[th] January, 2015[8]and it is within week from that date that the Government of Goa granteda second renewal to 25 mining leases and to make matters worse, asecond renewal was granted to 31 mining leases on 12[th] January, 2015the day the Ordinance came into force making total of 56 renewals ofCmining leases.

Environmental clearance and orders dated 20[th] March, 2015

30. Following the renewal of 88 mining leases, the State of Goarequested the MoEF by letters dated 7[th] January, 2015 and 5[th] February,2015 to lift the abeyance order of 14[th] September, 2012 on theDenvironmental clearances. Consequently, the MoEF passed three orderson 20[th] March, 2015 (the actual sequence of the orders is not very clear).

31. The first order of 20[th] March, 2015 was in the form of letteraddressed to the Principal Secretary, Environment, Government of Goaand it recorded that MoEF had considered all the 139 cases in which theEabeyance order has been passed and had taken into account the requestof the State Government, the recommendation of the EAC and thedirections of this Court. It was noted that the EAC had observed thatthere were violations of the following nature: (i) No clearance from theNational Board of Wildlife and non-compliance of orders of this CourtFon the subject; (ii) Excess production; (iii) Dump mining; (iv) Intersectingground water table and drawal of ground water without permission ofthe Central Ground Water Board; (v) No forest clearance obtained whererequired; (vi) Encroachment and false information/concealment of fact.It was stated that the MoEF had decided to refer the cases to the8 http://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/narendra-modi-cabinet-Gapproves-ordinance-for-mines-auction/story/214253.htmlhttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Cabinet-approves-ordinance-for-mines-auction/articleshow/45765290.cmshttp://www.financialexpress.com/economy/reforms-cabinet-approves-ordinance-for-mines-auction/26342/--http://www.livemint.com/Politics/VDXphnUmPYGbN4lmzEBslK/Govtpassesexecutive-order-to-auction-minerals.htmlH

appropriate authorities (including the State Government) for taking actionon the violations. Accordingly, request was made to examine the reportof the EAC and take appropriate action against the concerned lessees.

32. The second order passed on 20[th] March, 2015 was an OfficeMemorandum to the effect that if project proponent has valid andsubsisting environmental clearance for mining project under theEnvironment Impact Assessment Notification of 27[th] January, 1994 (EIA1994) or Environment Impact Assessment Notification of 14[th] September,2006 (EIA 2006), it will not be required to obtain fresh environmentalclearance at the time of renewal of the mining lease. This was subjectto the maximum period of validity of 30 years for the environmentalclearance for mining lease.

33. The third order passed on 20[th] March, 2015 related to liftingthe abeyance order dated 14[th] September, 2012 on the environmentalclearance of the mining leases for iron ore and manganese ore. Thecases of all 139 mining leases in which the abeyance order was passedwere considered and the abeyance order lifted in respect of 72 cases.The details in this regard are given in the table below:

NumberRemarksRemainingTotal mines = 1392Inadvertent repetitions1372Already withdrawn13512 Fully located in Protected Area (abeyance 123 order cannot be lifted) 6 Partly located in Protected Area (abeyance 117 order cannot be lifted)23Within 1 km. of Protected Area (awaiting 94modification of order dated 4.8.2006 passed by this Court) 22 Not having any Forest Clearance and will 72 be considered only after clearance is obtained35 Environmental Clearance already granted 37 under EIA Notification of 27.1.1994 and no fresh clearance is required in view of Office Memorandum dated 20.3.2015. Abeyance order lifted. 37 Environmental Clearance already granted 0 under EIA Notification of 14.9.2006. Abeyance order lifted.Abeyance order lifted on 20[th]March, 2015 for 72 mines out of 139

392SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 2 S.C.R.

A34. The third order of 20[th] March, 2015 also placed certainadditional specific conditions while lifting the abeyance order. Theseadditional conditions were:

1.State Government of Goa shall develop and implement crediblemechanism to regularly monitor and ensure that capping of 20BMTPA on the mining leases in the State of Goa is implementedas per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated21.04.2014 and any further order in the matter of Goa Foundationvs. Union of India in W.P. 435 of 2012.

2.No Mining shall be allowed in the forest land for which FC [forestclearance] is not available.C

3.The Mining of dumps is not permitted unless mentioned inapproved mine plan and Environmental Clearance letter.

4.Dumping of material outside the mine lease is not permitted unlessmentioned in approved mine plan and Environmental Clearance letter.

D5.Prior permission be obtained from Central Ground Water Boardfor drawl of ground water and intersection of ground water tableas applicable.

6.Violations will be dealt as per the existing law and lifting ofabeyance of EC will not in any manner affect that.

E7.If any violation is observed in future the environmental clearancewill be cancelled as per rules.

8.State Government will take action in cases of violation underSection 15/19 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as notedand recommended in EAC report.

F9.Project Proponent will file six monthly compliance to RegionalOfficer, MoEFCC and State Pollution Control Board.

Questions for consideration

35. Broadly speaking, on the basis of the submissions anddocuments placed before us, the questions raised by the Goa Foundation,Gthe State of Goa, the Union of India and the mining lease holders arethree-fold:

(a) Relatable to the second renewal of the mining leases: (i) In view ofthe decision in Goa Foundation only fresh leases were to be grantedby the State of Goa and not second renewals. (ii) For granting freshHleases, the State of Goa should have introduced competitive bidding or

the auction process. (iii) Assuming the decision to grant second renewalto the mining lease holders was valid, the second renewals were not inaccordance with law and should be set aside.

(b) Relatable to the grant of environmental clearances: In view of thedecision in Goa Foundation fresh environmental clearances wererequired to be obtained by the mining lease holders.

(c) The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court inLithoferro on 13[th] August, 2014 was erroneous and deserves to be set aside.

Whether fresh mining leases were required to be granted?

36.The controversy in this regard has arisen in view of what isstated in paragraph 82 of the decision in Goa Foundation. It was statedas follows:

“As we have held that the deemed mining leases of the lesseesin Goa expired on 22-11-1987 and the maximum period (20 years)of renewal of the deemed mining leases in Goa has also expiredon 22-11-2007, mining by the lessees in Goa after 22-11-2007was illegal. Hence, the Order dated 10-9-2012 of the Governmentof Goa suspending mining operations in the State of Goa and theOrder dated 14-9-2012 of MoEF, Government of India,suspending the environmental clearances granted to the minesin the State of Goa, which have been impugned in the writpetitions in the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench (transferred tothis Court and registered as transferred cases) cannot be quashedby this Court. The Order dated 10.9.2012 of theGovernment of Goa and the Order dated 14.9.2012 of theMoEF will have to continue till decisions are taken by theState Government to grant fresh leases and decisions aretaken by MoEF to grant fresh environmental clearancesfor mining projects.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

37. The issue that arose for discussion before us was the meaningand intention of the Court in the context of grant of ‘fresh leases’ formining projects. Did the Court literally mean that fresh mining leasewas required to be granted or was second renewal sufficientcompliance?

38.As the above quoted paragraph indicates, the Court was awareand conscious of the fact that the mining leases had expired on 22[nd]

ANovember, 2007 and the mining operations thereafter carried out by themining lease holders was illegal. For this reason, the Court held that thesuspension order passed by the State of Goa on 10[th] September, 2012and the abeyance order passed by the MoEF on 14[th] September, 2012did not require any interference.

B39. Since the mining operations carried out after 22[nd] November,2007 were illegal, the Court, in subsequent paragraphs of the judgmentnoted (as follow up) that an order was passed on 5[th] October, 2012suspending transportation of iron ore and manganese ore from thoseleases identified by the Justice Shah Commission.[9] Thereafter on 11[th]November, 2013 it was directed that an inventory be made of theCexcavated mineral ores and the inventoried mineral ores be sold by e-auction under the supervision of Monitoring Committee.[10]40. Further, it was held by the Court on 21[st] April, 2014 that fromthe e-auction sale of the mineral ores, the mining lease holders would beentitled to the average cost (not the actual cost) of extraction, the workersDwould be entitled to 50% wages and allowances on the principle of laid-off compensation and the Marmagao Port Trust would be entitled to50% of the storage charges. Out of the balance amount, 10% would beappropriated to the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund for the purpose ofsustainable development and intergenerational equity and the remainingEamount would be appropriated by the State who is the owner of themineral ores illegally excavated by the mining lease holders and sold bye-auction.

With this in mind, the Court declared in paragraph 87.5 of theReport:

F“It is for the State Government to decide as matter ofpolicy in what manner mining leases are to be granted infuture but the constitutionality or legality of the decision of theState Government can be examined by the Court in exercise ofits power of judicial review.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

GIt was then directed by the Court in paragraph 88.4 of the Reportas follows:

“The State Government may grant mining leases of iron oreand other ores in Goa in accordance with its policy decision and

9 Goa Foundation v. Union of India, WP (C) 435 of 2012 – order dated 5th October, 2012

H10 Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 738

in accordance with the MMDR Act and the Rules madethereunder in consonance with the constitutional provisions.”[Emphasis supplied by us].

41. The Court was quite obviously aware that it was concerned,inter alia, with the second renewal of mining leases and yet it chose torecount the factual situation, make declaration and pass directionwithout adverting to the possibility of second renewal of mining lease.The Court was also conscious that the mining lease holders had carriedout indiscriminate and illegal mining for about five years (from November2007 to September 2012) and had made profits out of the illegal mining.The Court, in our opinion, was rather charitable in not penalizing themining lease holders for the illegal mining carried out by them. But bethat as it may, quite clearly, the sequence of events from September2012 onwards, the appointment of Monitoring Committee to dispose ofthe illegally mined ore, the declaration and direction unmistakably pointto the intention of the Court to end the sordid chapter of illegal mining bythe lease holders and start on clean slate. Viewed in this perspective,we have no doubt that the Court really did intend the State of Goa toconsider the grant of fresh leases in accordance with law.

42. In this context, the declaration of the Court in Goa Foundationin paragraph 87.5 of Report is also quite clear, namely, “It is for the StateGovernment to decide as matter of policy in what manner mining leasesare to be granted in future….” The declaration was explicit and relatedto the grant of mining leases and not second renewal.

43.Similarly, the direction given in paragraph 88.4 of the Reportthat “The State Government may grant mining leases of iron ore andother ores in Goa in accordance with its policy decision…..” was equallyexplicit and related to the grant of mining leases and not second renewal.

44.Subsequent events confirm our impression and view. Thedecision of the Court to e-auction the mined mineral ore was sought tobe recalled through I.A. No. 86 of 2014 filed by M/s Bandekar BrothersPrivate Ltd. The applicant prayed for direction to restrain the authoritiesfrom e-auctioning the iron ore mined by it prior to 22[nd] November, 2007and that the mined ore should be released to the applicant with the rightto dispose of the same. Bench of three learned judges (other thanthose that decided Goa Foundation) noted that: “The submissionsadvanced on behalf of the applicant were premised merely on theassertion, that the mineral ore which the applicant was claiming right

ABC

Aover, had been legitimately mined before 22.11.2007, and therefore, theapplicant had an absolute and legitimate ownership over the same. Wemay note, that the above position was emphasized, stressed andpersistently reiterated to make the stand absolutely crystal clear.” Thelearned judges considered the submissions and held by an order dated14[th] October, 2014 that the direction in Goa Foundation was clear andBcategorical that the iron ore vested in the State Government and thereforethe application deserved dismissal. In other words, the mining leaseholders deserved no latitude for the illegal mining and all issues neededto be dealt with strictly.

45.There is additional material to support the view that the CourtChad intended the State of Goa to grant fresh mining leases rather thangrant second renewal.

46. From reading of the decision rendered by the Bombay HighCourt in Lithoferro (subject matter of SLP (C) No. 32138 of 2015 andSLP (C) Nos. 32699-32727 of 2015) it is evident that the State of GoaDunderstood the decision of this Court in Goa Foundation to mean thatfresh mining leases were required to be granted on the basis of policyyet to be framed by the State of Goa and the issue of second renewalsdid not survive consideration. The contention of the learned AdvocateGeneral of the State of Goa in this regard is recorded by the High CourtEin the following words:

“The learned Advocate General [of the State of Goa] took usthrough the Judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (C)435/2012 and relied upon the observations of the Supreme Courtin paras 67, 68, 69 and 70. The learned Advocate GeneralFsubmitted that the Honourable Supreme Court has held that thedeemed mining leases of the lessees in Goa expired on22[nd] November, 1987 and the maximum of 20 years renewalperiod of the deemed mining leases in Goa as provided undersubsection (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, read with sub-Rules 8 and 9 of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules expired onG22[nd] November, 2007. The learned Advocate Generalsubmitted that in view of these findings of the SupremeCourt, there is no question of renewal of the mining leases.The learned Advocate General submitted that in terms ofthe Supreme Court decision, it is for the State Governmentto grant fresh leases in accordance with the policy which

is yet to be framed. The learned Advocate General submittedthat the Supreme Court has kept Writ Petition (C) 435/2012pending and, therefore, it is for the petitioners to approach theSupreme Court and seek appropriate orders. The learnedAdvocate General submitted that the orders on which thepetitioners rely, at the most show that the Government inprinciple has agreed for renewal of the leases for furtherperiod of 20 years and the same was not final decision.He submitted that in terms of the said decision of the ApexCourt, it is for the State Government to frame freshmining policy and after framing the same, to decide grantingof fresh mining leases.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

47. While considering the submissions of the learned AdvocateGeneral and learned counsel, the High Court noted that this Court wasalive to the fact that the State of Goa had granted in-principle secondrenewal to 28 mining leases and had collected renewal fees or stampduty from 27 mining leases (presumably out of the 28 mining leases) asstated in the brief resume filed by the State of Goa in this Court. TheHigh Court noted:

(II) In the brief resume presented by the State of Goa and placedon record of the Supreme Court, in Writ Petition (C) 435/2012, itis inter alia, mentioned thus:

“…Presently in the State of Goa, it is found that the Applicationsfor Renewal were filed well within time as contemplated by Rule24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Presently, the Statehas ordered renewal of 28 mining leases, granted in principleapprovals and has collected Renewal Fees/Stamp Duty from 27Mining Leases..”

48. In other words, notwithstanding the in-principle grant of secondrenewal of 28 mining leases and collection of renewal fees or stampduty, this Court in Goa Foundation consciously required the State ofGoa to grant fresh leases. What is equally significant is that the State ofGoa also understood the decision of the Court in the same manner andintended to act on that basis.

49. Unfortunately, the State of Goa was overtaken by events inthat the High Court delivered its judgment in Lithoferro on 13[th] August,2014 and while doing so, it misunderstood or incorrectly appreciated the

Adecision of this Court in Goa Foundation and disagreed with the viewof the State of Goa. While this Court had required the State of Goa togrant fresh mining leases and the State of Goa was willing to complywith this direction, the High Court instead directed it to execute miningleases under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act in respect of those whohad paid the renewal fees or stamp duty. The High Court also directedBthe State of Goa to decide their pending second renewal applicationswithin period of three months keeping in mind the provisions of Section8(3) of the MMDR Act (presumably after paying the renewal fees orstamp duty in terms of the Government order of 21[st] February, 2013).The understanding by the High Court of the decision of this Court inCGoa Foundation is totally incorrect.

50. It appears from the contents of the Grant of Mining LeasesPolicy that in view of the decision of this Court in Goa Foundation theState was actively considering policy for granting fresh mining leasesby considering several factors. However, the decision and directions ofDthe High Court supervened leaving no choice, according to the State, butto completely abandon the process of grant of fresh mining leases throughthe process of competitive bidding for earning revenue and justify theabandonment.

51.As per the Grant of Mining Leases Policy, the State of GoaEtherefore had two realistic options before it: (i) To implement the judgmentand order of this Court in Goa Foundation (as understood by the Stateof Goa) and grant fresh mining leases in the manner felt appropriate andin accordance with law; (ii) To abide by the judgment of the High Court(and its understanding of the judgment of this Court in Goa Foundationwhile rejecting its understanding by the State of Goa) and grant secondFrenewal to the mining leases in terms of Section 8(3) of the MMDRAct. The State of Goa appears to have taken the view that challengingthe decision of the High Court (and therefore abiding by the decision ofthis Court) would delay the commencement of mining operations. TheState took into consideration that substantial portion of its revenueGcomes from the mining sector and that the State had been virtually starvedof funds on account of stoppage of mining operations. Therefore, theState decided to grant second renewal to the mining leases and notgrant fresh leases. This is quite apparent from the contents of the Grantof Mining Leases Policy wherein the above facts and conclusions havebeen stated in greater detail. Was this decision correct?H

52. Learned counsel for the mining lease holders submitted thatthe renewal of mining lease is equivalent to or amounts to the grant ofa fresh lease and therefore when the mining leases were renewed, itamounted to the grant of fresh lease in compliance with the directionsof this Court. Reliance was placed upon Delhi Development Authorityv. Durga Chand Kaushish[11] wherein this Court held:

“A renewal of lease is really the grant of fresh lease. It iscalled “renewal” simply because it postulates the existence ofa prior lease which generally provides for renewals as of right.In all other respects, it is really fresh lease.”

53. Reference was also made to Provash Chandra Dalui v.Biswanath Banerjee[12] in which it was held in paragraph 14 of the Reportthat there is distinction between extension of lease and renewal of alease. We do not find any relevance of this to our discussion. Referencewas also made to the view expressed in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[13]wherein this Court noted that it is settled law that grant of renewal is afresh grant and must be consistent with law.

54. Finally reliance was placed on State of West Bengal v. CalcuttaMineral Supply Company Private Limited[14] in which decision it wasnoted in paragraph 31 of the Report that the renewal of lease is freshgrant. This decision also refers to Gajraj Singh v. State TransportAppellate Tribunal[15] wherein this Court observed in paragraph 38 ofthe Report that the grant of renewal is fresh grant though it breatheslife into the operation of the previous lease or licence granted.

55.There is no doubt that the renewal of lease is virtually thesame as the grant of fresh lease but converse direction to grant amining lease cannot be understood to mean granting renewal of amining lease. Obviously, the grant of fresh lease is not the same as therenewal of lease and when the Court in Goa Foundation required theState of Goa to grant fresh lease, it did not require the State to renewthe existing (expired) lease. The Court could have explicitly declaredand directed the State of Goa to grant second renewal of the miningleases rather than to say it in roundabout manner that it should do so by

11 (1973) 2 SCC 825

12 1989 Supp (1) SCC 487

13 (2004) 12 SCC 118

14 (2015) 8 SCC 655

15 (1997) 1 SCC 650

Agranting fresh lease equivalent to renewal. We simply cannot acceptthe submissions made by learned counsel for the mining lease holders inthis regard.

56. That apart, as we have already noted above, the context andmaterial on record disabuse the thought that the Court in Goa FoundationBdid not mandate the grant of fresh mining leases in accordance with law.

57. Learned counsel for the mining lease holders contended thatthe very same learned judges that decided Goa Foundation permittedthe State Government in Common Cause v. Union of India[16]to considergranting second renewal of mining leases under Section 8(3) of theCMMDR Act. Therefore the requirement in Goa Foundation for thegrant of ‘fresh leases’ must be understood in manner similar to whatwas directed in Common Cause. We are unable to accept this contention.The direction given in Common Cause was an interim direction and nota final direction as in Goa Foundation. Moreover, the facts in bothcases are not at all similar so as to warrant similar order being passedDor understood. Finally, the fact that the same set of learned judges thoughtit fit to direct the grant of ‘fresh leases’ in one set of cases and thoughtit fit to direct consideration of ‘second renewal’ in another set of casesindicates that the learned judges were aware of the difference indirections. Therefore when the leaned judges directed the grant of ‘freshEleases’ in Goa Foundation it was deliberate and conscious decisiondistinct and different from granting second renewal of expired miningleases.58. In our opinion, the direction in Goa Foundation is quite clearand instead of considering the grant of second renewal of the miningFleases, the State of Goa was required to consider the grant of freshmining leases. Therefore the decision of the State of Goa to grant asecond renewal of the mining leases is erroneous, contrary to the decisionin Goa Foundation and must be and is quashed.

Whether the State of Goa should have auctioned the miningleases?G

59. As mentioned in the Grant of Mining Leases Policy there wereseveral options available to the State of Goa. It took the view that all itsoptions were foreclosed post the decision of the High Court and it wasobliged to grant second renewal of the mining leases. We have already

H16 (2014) 14 SCC 155

held that this was not so and that the decision to grant second renewalof the mining leases was erroneous and fresh leases were required to begranted in accordance with the decision in Goa Foundation. In view ofour conclusion, the discussion on whether the State of Goa should haveauctioned the mining leases through process of competitive bidding isnow rendered academic. However, since detailed submissions were madeby learned counsel on both sides, including by the learned AdditionalSolicitor General, we propose to express our views on the subject.

60.The discussion on the question of auction being the only methodof allocation or disposal of natural resources arose due to the viewexpressed by this Court in Centre for Public InterestLitigation v. Union of India.[17] In that decision (hereafter referred toas CPIL – although this case is generally referred to as the 2G scamcase) the Court dealt with the question of following non-discriminatorypolicy for alienation of natural resources. While doing so it was observedthat an auction is “perhaps the best method for discharging this burden”and concluded by holding that “while transferring or alienating the naturalresources, the State is duty-bound to adopt the method of auction bygiving wide publicity so that all eligible persons can participate in theprocess.” This led to the belief that the view of this Court was thatnatural resources should be alienated or disposed of only by auction andby no other method. The Court held in paragraphs 95 and 96 of theReport as follows:

“This Court has repeatedly held that wherever contract is tobe awarded or licence is to be given, the public authority mustadopt transparent and fair method for making selections sothat all eligible persons get fair opportunity of competition. Toput it differently, the State and its agencies/instrumentalities mustalways adopt rational method for disposal of public propertyand no attempt should be made to scuttle the claim of worthyapplicants. When it comes to alienation of scarce naturalresources like spectrum, etc. it is the burden of the State to ensurethat non-discriminatory method is adopted for distribution andalienation, which would necessarily result in protection of national/public interest.

In our view, duly publicised auction conducted fairly andimpartially is perhaps the best method for discharging this burden

Aand the methods like first-come-first-served when used foralienation of natural resources/public property are likely to bemisused by unscrupulous people who are only interested ingarnering maximum financial benefit and have no respect forthe constitutional ethos and values. In other words, whiletransferring or alienating the natural resources, the StateBis duty-bound to adopt the method of auction by givingwide publicity so that all eligible persons can participatein the process.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

61. In Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary[18]a Benchof 3 judges of this Court paraphrased the above passages and observedCthat the view expressed in CPIL necessitated reference by the Presidentof India to this Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution being SpecialReference No. 1 – Natural Resources Allocation.[19]

62.What was the Advisory Opinion given by this Court in NaturalResources Allocation? Among the questions referred for opinion wereDthe following:

Question 1. Whether the only permissible method for disposalof all natural resources across all sectors and in all circumstancesis by the conduct of auctions?

EQuestion 2. Whether broad proposition of law that only theroute of auctions can be resorted to for disposal of naturalresources does not run contrary to several judgments of theSupreme Court including those of the larger Benches?

63. In the Reference, it was submitted before the ConstitutionBench that paragraphs 94 to 96 in CPIL laid down the ratio vis-à-visFdisposal of natural resources. It was argued that “these paragraphs laydown, as proposition of law, that all natural resources across all sectors,and in all circumstances are to be disposed of by way of public auction,and on the other [hand], it was urged that the observations therein weremade only qua spectrum.”G64. The submissions made by learned counsel were then discussedand thereafter this Court recorded its conclusions between paragraphs82 and 84 of Natural Resources Allocation. In paragraph 84, it was held:

18 (2014) 9 SCC 516H19 (2012) 10 SCC 1

“84. Thus, having come to the conclusion that 2G case[20] doesnot deal with modes of allocation for natural resources,other than spectrum, we shall now proceed to answer thefirst question of the Reference pertaining to other naturalresources, as the question subsumes the essence of the entirereference, particularly the set of first five questions.” [Emphasissupplied by us].

65.Thereafter, while answering the first question in the Reference,the Court considered the issue from various perspectives. It first dealtwith the issue in the context of Article 14 and Article 39(b) of theConstitution and concluded in paragraph 120 of the Report that thedisposal of natural resources for revenue maximization through auctionsis not constitutional mandate. It was held:

“Therefore, in conclusion, the submission that the mandate ofArticle 14 is that any disposal of natural resource for commercialuse must be for revenue maximisation, and thus by auction, isbased neither on law nor on logic. There is no constitutionalimperative in the matter of economic policies—Article 14does not predefine any economic policy as constitutionalmandate. Even the mandate of Article 39(b) imposes norestrictions on the means adopted to subserve the public goodand uses the broad term “distribution”, suggesting that themethodology of distribution is not fixed. Economic logicestablishes that alienation/allocation of natural resources to thehighest bidder may not necessarily be the only way to subservethe common good, and at times, may run counter to public good.Hence, it needs little emphasis that disposal of all naturalresources through auctions is clearly not constitutionalmandate.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

66. The issue was then considered from the standpoint of legitimatedeviations from an auction. After adverting to several decisions of thisCourt where auctions were not the favoured method of allocation ofnatural resources, it was held between paragraphs 129 and 131 of theReport as follows:

“Hence, it is manifest that there is no constitutional mandate infavour of auction under Article 14. The Government has

20 Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (CPIL case or 2G scam case)

DEF

repeatedly deviated from the course of auction and this Courthas repeatedly upheld such actions. The judiciary tests suchdeviations on the limited scope of arbitrariness and fairness underArticle 14 and its role is limited to that extent. Essentially,whenever the object of policy is anything but revenuemaximisation, the executive is seen to adopt methodsother than auction.

fortiori, besides legal logic, mandatory auction may be contraryto economic logic as well. Different resources may requiredifferent treatment. Very often, exploration and exploitationcontracts are bundled together due to the requirement of heavycapital in the discovery of natural resources. concern wouldrisk undertaking such exploration and incur heavy costsonly if it was assured utilisation of the resourcediscovered: prudent business venture would not like toincur the high costs involved in exploration activities andthen compete for that resource in an open auction. Thelogic is similar to that applied in patents. Firms are given incentivesto invest in research and development with the promise ofexclusive access to the market for the sale of that invention.Such an approach is economically and legally sound andsometimes necessary to spur research and development.Similarly, bundling exploration and exploitation contracts may benecessary to spur growth in specific industry.

Similar deviation from auction cannot be ruled out when theobject of State policy is to promote domestic development ofan industry, like in Kasturi Lal case[21 ]discussed above. However,these examples are purely illustrative in order to demonstratethat auction cannot be the sole criterion for alienation of

all natural resources.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

67. Finally, the issue was considered from the point of view of thepotential of abuse in allocation of natural resources other than throughGauction and in this context it was held in paragraph 135 of the Report:

“Therefore, potential for abuse cannot be the basis for strikingdown method as ultra vires the Constitution. It is the actualabuse itself that must be brought before the court for being

H21 (1980) 4 SCC 1

tested on the anvil of constitutional provisions. In fact, itmay be said that even auction has potential of abuse, like anyother method of allocation, but that cannot be the basis ofdeclaring it as an unconstitutional methodology either. Thesedrawbacks include cartelisation, the “winner’s curse” (thephenomenon by which bidder bids higher, unrealistic andunexecutable price just to surpass the competition; or where abidder, in case of multiple auctions, bids for all the resources andends up winning licences for exploitation of more resources thanhe can pragmatically execute), etc. However, all the same, auctioncannot be called ultra vires for the said reasons and continues tobe an attractive and preferred means of disposal of naturalresources especially when revenue maximisation is priority.Therefore, neither auction, nor any other method of disposalcan be held ultra vires the Constitution, merely becauseof potential abuse.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

68. The conclusion arrived at by the Constitution Bench was thenrecorded between paragraphs 148 and 150 of the Report in the followingwords:

“In our opinion, auction despite being more preferablemethod of alienation/allotment of natural resources, cannotbe held to be constitutional requirement or limitation foralienation of all natural resources and therefore, every methodother than auction cannot be struck down as ultra vires theconstitutional mandate.

Regard being had to the aforesaid precepts, we have opined thatauction as mode cannot be conferred the status of aconstitutional principle. Alienation of natural resources is apolicy decision, and the means adopted for the same arethus, executive prerogatives. However, when such policydecision is not backed by social or welfare purpose, andprecious and scarce natural resources are alienated forcommercial pursuits of profit maximising privateentrepreneurs, adoption of means other than those thatare competitive and maximise revenue may be arbitraryand face the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence,rather than prescribing or proscribing method, we believe, ajudicial scrutiny of methods of disposal of natural resources should

ABC

depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, inconsonance 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, unreasonableand capricious due to its antimony with Article 14 of theConstitution.

In conclusion, our answer to the first set of five questionsis that auctions are not the only permissible method fordisposal of all natural resources across all sectors and inall circumstances.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

C69. It is therefore more than explicit that there is no constitutionalrequirement (let alone mandate) for allocation of natural resourcesthrough the auction method (other than spectrum) but at the same timethe auction process should not be given go-bye without any justification –the decision to give go-bye is judicially reviewable though the scope ofjudicial review might be rather restricted. The melting pot of allocationDof natural resource, social or welfare purpose and adherence to therequirements of Articles 14 and 39(b) of the Constitution in matters ofpolicy was great leap forward fashioned by the Constitution Bench.Consequently, while there is no mandate, constitutional or otherwise,that natural resource allocation must be only by auction, it is certainly “aEmore preferable method”. There are exceptions, such as when the naturalresource allocation is for “social or welfare purpose”. On the otherhand if the natural resource allocation is “for commercial pursuits ofprofit maximising private entrepreneurs” de hors any social or welfarepurpose, then judicial review would be permissible and Article 14 of theConstitution would be attracted and if the executive action is found to beFarbitrary, it would be struck down. Therefore, when it comes to naturalresource allocation, the executive has somewhat limited elbow room.

70. In his concurring opinion, Justice Khehar took the view (inparagraph 186 of the Report) that: “…when natural resources are madeavailable by the State to private persons for commercial exploitationGexclusively for their individual gains, the State’s endeavour must betowards maximisation of revenue returns.” [Emphasis supplied by us]The learned judge concluded his opinion by agreeing that an auction isone of the price recovery mechanisms, but not the only one for allocationof natural resources. “That should not be understood to mean that it canHnever be valid method for disposal of natural resources.” It was further

held that natural resources cannot be alienated by way of largesse –there must be reciprocal consideration either in the form of earningrevenue or sub-serving the common good or both. The learned judgehad this to say:

“The policy of allocation of natural resources for public goodcan be defined by the legislature, as has been discussed in theforegoing paragraphs. Likewise, policy for allocation of naturalresources may also be determined by the executive. Theparameters for determining the legality and constitutionality ofthe two are exactly the same. In the aforesaid view of the matter,there can be no doubt about the conclusion recorded in the mainopinion that auction which is just one of the several price recoverymechanisms, cannot be held to be the only constitutionallyrecognised method for alienation of natural resources. That shouldnot be understood to mean that it can never be valid methodfor disposal of natural resources (refer to paras 186 to 188 ofmy instant opinion).

I would, therefore, conclude by stating that no part of the naturalresource can be dissipated as matter of largesse, charity,donation or endowment, for private exploitation. Each bitof natural resource expended must bring back reciprocalconsideration. The consideration may be in the nature ofearning revenue or may be to “best subserve the commongood”. It may well be the amalgam of the two. There cannotbe dissipation of material resources free of cost or at aconsideration lower than their actual worth. One set ofcitizens cannot prosper at the cost of another set of citizens, forthat would not be fair or reasonable.” [Emphasis supplied byus].

71.This issue was considered in Goa Foundation as well. TheCourt adverted to Natural Resources Allocation in paragraph 81 ofthe Report and pithily expressed its view that the manner of granting amining lease is policy decision of the State Government, but the decisioncan be examined by way of judicial review. It was held:

“We are of the considered opinion that it is for the StateGovernment to decide as matter of policy in what manner theleases of these mineral resources would be granted, but thisdecision has to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the

MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and in consonancewith the constitutional provisions and the decision taken by theState of Goa to grant mining lease in particular manner or toa particular party can be examined by way of judicial review bythe Court.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

BIt was then declared in paragraph 87.5 of the Report that:

“It is for the State Government to decide as matter of policy inwhat manner mining leases are to be granted in future but theconstitutionality or legality of the decision of the StateGovernment can be examined by the Court in exercise ofCits power of judicial review.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

Similarly, in Manohar Lal Sharma this Court adverted to theissue and noted the following in paragraph 98 of the Report:

“The Constitution Bench [Natural Resources Allocation]clarified that the statement of law in 2G case [CPIL] that whileDtransferring or alienating the natural resources, the State is duty-bound to adopt the method of auction was confined to the specificcase of spectrum and not for dispensation of all natural resources.The Constitution Bench said that findings of this Court in 2Gcase were limited to the case of spectrum and not beyond thatand that it did not deal with the modes of allocation for naturalEresources other than spectrum.”The Court also referred to the views expressed by Justice Kheharand held, in paragraph 104 of the Report:

“In light of the above legal position, the argument that auction isthe best way to select private parties as per Article 39(b) doesFnot merit acceptance.”

72.This Court then exercised its power of judicial review andconsidered the merits of the explanation given by the Central Governmentfor not adopting the competitive bidding route for the allocation of coalblocks. The various submissions made, the various hurdles facedG(including objections of the State Governments) as well as theimpracticality of opening up the allocation of coal blocks to competitivebidding were considered and then it was held (after opening the windowof Article 14 of the Constitution) in paragraph 110 of the Report:

“The above facts show that it took almost 8 years in putting inHplace allocation of captive coal blocks through competitive

bidding. During this period, many coal blocks were allocated givingrise to present controversy, which was avoidable becausecompetitive bidding would have brought in transparency,objectivity and very importantly given level playing field to allapplicants of coal and lowered the difference between the marketprice of coal and the cost of coal for the allottee by way ofpremium which would have accrued to the Government. Be thatas it may, once it is laid down by the Constitution Bench of thisCourt in Natural Resources Allocation that the Court cannotconduct comparative study of various methods of distributionof natural resources and cannot mandate one method to befollowed in all facts and circumstances, then if the grave situationof shortage of power prevailing at that time necessitated privateparticipation and the Government felt that it would have beenimpractical and unrealistic to allocate coal blocks through auctionand later on in 2004 or so there was serious opposition by manyState Governments to bidding system, and the Government didnot pursue competitive bidding/public auction route, then in ourview, the administrative decision of the Government not to pursuecompetitive bidding cannot be said to be so arbitrary orunreasonable warranting judicial interference. It is not the domainof the Court to evaluate the advantages of competitive biddingvis-à-vis other methods of distribution/disposal of naturalresources. However, if the allocation of subject coal blocksis inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution and theprocedure that has been followed in such allocation is foundto be unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, non-transparent,capricious or suffers from favouritism or nepotism andviolative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution,the consequences of such unconstitutional or illegalallocation must follow.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

73. More recently in M/s. Ajar Enterprises Private Limited v.Satyanarayan Somani[22] this Court once again examined the issue ofdistribution of natural resources and held:

“Undoubtedly, disposal of natural resources by auction is not amandatory principle for, as the Constitution Bench held,[23]

22 2017 (10) SCALE 346

23 Natural Resource Allocation

ABCDEF

Aindividual statutes may provide for modalities of transfer byalternate modes which subserve public interest. ….. The choiceof methods is not left to the unbridled discretion of publicauthority. Where public authority exercises an executiveprerogative, it must nonetheless act in manner which wouldsubserve public interest and facilitate the distribution ofBscarce natural resources in manner that would achievepublic good. Where public authority implements policy, whichis backed by constitutionally recognised social purpose intendedto achieve the welfare of the community, the considerations whichwould govern would be different from those when it alienatesCnatural resources for commercial exploitation. When publicbody is actuated by constitutional purpose embodied in theDirective Principles, the considerations which weigh with it indetermining the mode of alienation should be such as wouldachieve the underlying object. In certain cases, the dominantconsideration is not to maximize revenues but to achieveDsocial good such as when the alienation is to provideaffordable housing to members of the Scheduled Castesor Tribes or to implement housing schemes for Below thePoverty Line (BPL) families. In other cases where naturalresources are alienated for commercial exploitation, aEpublic authority cannot allow them to be dissipated at itsunbridled discretion at the cost of public interest.”[Emphasis supplied by us].

The window is now more than ajar.

74. Till fairly recently, policy matters particularly of economicFpolicy were hands-off as far as the courts were concerned.[24] But therecent decisions of this Court, including by the Constitution Bench in itsadvisory jurisdiction, have partially modified this theory and kept openthe window to judicially review such policy if it does not serve thecommon good as understood in Article 39(b) of the Constitution, if itGviolates Article 14 of the Constitution and alienates natural resources formaximizing profits of private entrepreneurs while sidelining Article 39(b)of the Constitution. “The legislature and the executive are answerableto the Constitution and it is there where the judiciary, the guardian of the

24 BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333 at paragraphs46 and 47H

Constitution, must find the contours to the powers of disposal of naturalresources, especially Article 14 and Article 39(b) [of the Constitution].[25]

75. Notwithstanding this, Court must exercise restraint and notset aside Government policy only because it disagrees with it or becausea better policy could be framed or simply because it has the power to setaside the policy. Policies framed by the State, after due consideration,must be respected and given enough elbow room and flexibility forimplementation. Of course, there would be occasions when theimplementation of policy has teething problems or some lacuna isdiscovered at slightly later stage, but that does not mean that policyitself is defective. Therefore, Courts must be very cautious andcircumspect in diluting or setting aside policy and must do so only if itis constitutionally unavoidable, otherwise good governance could be acasualty.76. The conclusions that could be drawn from all these decisionsare: (i) It is not obligatory, constitutionally or otherwise, that naturalresource (other than spectrum) must be disposed of or alienated orallocated only through an auction or through competitive bidding; (ii)Where the distribution, allocation, alienation or disposal of naturalresource is to private party for commercial pursuit of maximizingprofits, then an auction is more preferable method of such allotment;(iii) decision to not auction natural resource is liable to challenge andsubject to restricted and limited judicial review under Article 14 of theConstitution; (iv) decision to not auction natural resource and sacrificemaximization of revenues might be justifiable if the decision is taken,inter alia, for the social good or the public good or the common good;(v) Unless the alienation or disposal of natural resource is for thecommon good or social or welfare purpose, it cannot be dissipated infavour of private entrepreneur virtually free of cost or for aconsideration not commensurate with its worth without attracting Article14 and Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

Whether the decision of the State of Goa forsaking the auctionroute is arbitrary?

77. Keeping in mind the broad principles identified above, thequestion that arises for our consideration is whether the State of Goawas justified in not adopting the auction route for the grant of mining

25 Paragraph 95 of the Natural Resource Allocation decision

Aleases and simply granting second renewal. For better understandingof this issue, it would be worthwhile to again refer to the Goa MineralPolicy, the report of the EAC, the Grant of Mining Leases Policy andthe decision of the Bombay High Court, which documents were reliedupon by the learned Additional Solicitor General.

B(i) Goa Mineral Policy

78. The Mineral Policy makes it very clear that during the periodfrom about 2006 till about 2012 (for about 5 years) extraction of iron orein Goa was nothing but free-for-all situation. Illegalities and irregularitieswere committed in abundance by all concerned, particularly the miningClease holders. The Mineral Policy records that the State witnessed thepeak of chaotic and unregulated mining. The thought of protecting andpreserving the environment, concern for the fragile ecology of Goa wasfar from the thoughts of the stakeholders – even the well-being of theaverage Goan was not taken into consideration by the stakeholders. Areading of the initial paragraphs of the Mineral Policy suggests that nothingDshort of rapacious mining was going on in Goa. Who were the beneficiariesof all this rapaciousness? Could all this be ignored?

79. The Mineral Policy informs us that the beneficiaries of therapaciousness were not the domestic industry and certainly not theaverage Goan. The reason for this is spelt out in the Mineral PolicyEitself. Iron ore from Goa is not suitable for the Indian industry due to thelow Fe content and the high silica presence. Therefore, there is no valueaddition to the Indian industry and the iron ore was mined only for export– mainly to China and also to Japan. With port in the vicinity, Goan ironore was an attractive buy for the global market and the spin-offs benefitedFthose in the port, transporters and barge owners etc. The primarybeneficiary of this was, of course, the mining lease holder, privateentity, and the price was paid by the average Goan who had to suffer apolluted environment and witness the damage to the State’s ecology.80. If the issues mentioned in the Mineral Policy are objectivelyGconsidered in strict monetary terms, the only conclusion that can bedrawn is that the extraction of iron ore was for commercial purposesand maximizing the revenues of private entrepreneurs and not necessarilythe State of Goa. The natural resource was exploited by some mininglease holders for making profits and nothing else. There were somecollateral beneficiaries as well, and they too were commercially drivenHentities such as barge owners, truck owners etc. Under these

circumstances, the question that arises is whether the mining lease holdersshould have been given second renewal of the mining lease virtuallyfor song, that is, payment only of royalty, when they were driven onlyby profit motive or whether the mining leases ought to have beenauctioned? Unfortunately, the Mineral Policy did not advert to or evenconsider any solution that would break from the past.

81. As far as the environment, the fragile ecology of Goa and thewell-being of the average Goan and the rule of law is concerned, theMineral Policy categorically states that the State had witnessed, from2006-07 till 2011-12 the peak of chaotic and unregulated mining withoutany concern for the fragile ecology and environment of the State or forthe general well-being of an average Goan. Surely, all this cannot beignored or brushed aside particularly since the exploitation of mineralresources for five years had no element of social or public purpose, noconcern for society and no regard for the environment and the laws.

(ii)Vishwanath Anand Expert Appraisal Committee

82. reading of the report of the EAC is disturbing and acutelyhighlights the damage to the environment and ecology by the mininglease holders. The complete indifference by all concerned is evidentfrom careful reading of the report. We propose to refer to and quote inextenso the ‘summary of observations’ and the ‘concluding remarks’from the report of the EAC since they are self explanatory:

“Sum mary of Observations

I.The absence of specific conditions highlighting themandatory requirement to obtain prior approval of theStanding Committee of the NBWL [National Board for WildLife] in the EC [Environmental Clearance] has led tomisinterpretation of the legal requirement. There has beenan inordinate delay of more than 5 years before effectiveaction against defaulting units were initiated by the Ministryfor non-compliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court orderdated 04.12.2006.

II.Out of 137 ECs, the requirement of obtaining approval ofthe Standing Committee of the NBWL under the W.L. (P)Act 1972 [Wild Life (Protection) Act] has not been compliedwith in 123 cases where the distances are less than 10 kmfrom the nearest PA [Protected Area].

III. In respect of 10 cases approval of the Standing Committeeof the NBWL is not mandatory as the mine leases arelocated beyond 10 km from nearest PA.

IV.Contrary to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtdated 04.08.2006 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995; ECshave been accorded to 41 mines located within 1 km fromthe nearest PA.

V.In respect of 20 cases mine leases were renewed underMMDR Act, 1957 prior to grant of FCs [Forest Clearance].

VI. In 29 cases, project proponents have furnished wronginformation about distance from the nearest PAs.

VII. Non-compliance of various EC conditions such as excessproduction/unauthorized dump mining/drawal of groundwater without prior approval of CGWB/encroachment; havealso been reported in respect of working mines.

Concluding Remarks

reading of our observations and recommendations would showthat without exception, every proponent to whom anenvironment clearance was issued has either violated itsconditions or has furnished information in the applicationwhich has been distant from the truth. There are basically twotypes of violations; one that cannot be legally condoned and thosethat can be rectified with remedial measures. This is the reasonwhy the committee has recommended that all ECs for mineslocated within one km from PAs should be revoked and in caseswhere untruthful information was furnished in the applicationfor EC, such mines should not be allowed to reopen. In the caseof those mines which have been closed for more than five years,their reopening has not been recommended without their applyingde novo for fresh environmental clearance as microenvironmental conditions on the ground would have changedduring the period they remained closed. However, when onelooks at the manner in which the directives dated 04.08.2006and 04.12.2006 of the Supreme Court have been implementedone cannot help but feel that there is the absenceof bridge mechanism within the Ministry to ensure and oversee thatdirectives of the Courts are complied with due diligence and seriousness.

There are two factors which stand out; in some ECs as mentionedin this report, the condition was inserted that the project proponentshould seek approval of the CWLW [Chief Wild Life Warden],in others it was stated that approval of the Competent Authority/Standing Committee of the NBWL should be obtained and in athird category no condition at all was imposed, even though someof these ECs pertain to the same meeting and timelines between2005 and 2007. It is strange that concerned officials in the MOEFwere not aware that other than the Standing Committee of theNBWL no other person was authorised to grant the permissionenvisaged by the order dated 04.12.2006 of the Supreme Court.This is not to state that any discrepancy in the EC letter wouldabsolve the project proponent from complying with the law ofthe land. This has resulted in creating ambiguity amongst manyof the project proponents and it was not until 01.01.2009, thatthe MOEF issued public notice clarifying the position.

Considering that some of the project proponents may have beenmisguided by the ambivalence of the MOEF in not clearlydelineating the legal position, it is suggested that in the case ofthose project proponents who did not conceal facts in theirapplications but did not apply for permission to the StandingCommittee of the NBWL, their applications may be consideredfor being placed before the Standing Committee of the NBWL.However this can in no way be construed as justification onthe part of the project proponents for not complying with therequirements of the law. It must be noted for example that inthose cases where mining has intersected the ground water,approval of the CGWB [Central Ground Water Board] had notbeen taken by the project proponents as was required by theEC. Similarly, there are cases where mining operations havetaken place without obtaining FC.

As regards violations of the conditions of the ECs and whereenvironmental damage has been caused, the concernedproponents should be made accountable and the MOEF shouldexamine as to how some monetary damages can be levied throughdue legal process based on the Polluter Must Pay principle, theproceeds of which could be used for environmental rehabilitation.

AThere are concerns about the carrying capacity of the area withregard to its ability to sustain the extent and quantum of miningthat has taken place there. It is recommended that carryingcapacity study should be commissioned for the area, or if anotherstudy by nationally recognised institution is coming to fruitionthe result of that should be acted upon. Such study should alsoBtake into account the impact of mining on the hydrology of theregion and the extent of pollution caused to surface and groundwater. This study should be compared to the earlier 10 yearsbaseline data to determine the impact of mining on the biodiversityand hydrology of the area in the last decade. Based on theCfinding of this, specific policy for mining of iron ore in theregion may be developed. Such policy along with propercontrol and monitoring mechanism is necessary in order to avoida situation such as the one under question. It would hopefullyalso ensure that mining in this region is carried out in accordancewith best sectoral practices using appropriately cleanDtechnologies.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

83. The report of the EAC reveals that there is not singleenvironment related or mining related law or legal requirement that wasnot violated by one or the other mining lease holder. Quite clearly, therule of environmental law in Goa had gone with the wind.

84.There was one extremely important requirement relating toextraction of groundwater – that is clearance from the Central GroundWater Board - but even that was ignored. During the course ofsubmissions, we were informed that there is plenty of groundwateravailable in Goa. However, what seems to have been overlooked is thatFwith the intersection of groundwater levels with mining operations, thegroundwater would get depleted much faster than expected or the qualityof the groundwater would deteriorate. It is for this reason that MoEFinsisted that clearance for drawal of groundwater must be taken fromthe Central Ground Water Board and care taken in respect of theGintersection of groundwater level with mining operations (this happenedin 46 cases). Unfortunately, no heed was paid to these requirements bythe State of Goa or any of the mining lease holders and not one miningleast holder has any clearance (where required) from the Central GroundWater Board, or at least none was brought to our notice.

(iii)Decision of the Bombay High Court

85. The High Court essentially created two classes of applicantsfor the grant of mining lease – those in whose favour an in-principledecision had been taken for second renewal of the mining lease andwho had paid the necessary stamp duty in terms of the Governmentorder of 21[st] February, 2013 and those who had not yet paid the requisitestamp duty.

86. As regards the first category, the High Court directed executionof the mining lease in their favour in accordance with the provisions ofSection 8(3) of the MMDR Act. This was on the belief that the applicantshad applied for the second renewal within the prescribed time period;the Indian Bureau of Mines had approved the mining plans of theseapplicants; the Indian Bureau of Mines was subjectively satisfied thatthe second renewal was in the interest of mineral development; and thatin view of the principles of promissory estoppel these applicants wereentitled to second renewal of their mining lease since they had alteredtheir position to their detriment by paying the stamp duty demanded.87. As regards the second category (those who had not paid thestamp duty), the High Court directed the State of Goa to decide theirsecond renewal application within period of three months keeping inmind the provisions of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act (and therequirement to pay the stamp duty).

88.The decision of the High Court does not at all discuss the optionsavailable to the State of Goa, namely, second renewal of the miningleases versus auction of natural resource. In fact it appears that theHigh Court was not at all alive to the possibility of an auction of themining leases, notwithstanding the view canvassed by the learnedAdvocate General of the State of Goa.

(iv)Goa Grant of Mining Leases Policy 2014

89.The Grant of Mining Leases Policy announced and issued on4[th] November, 2014 is perhaps the most important document in the entirescheme of things and that is the reason it was read out extensively bythe learned Additional Solicitor General and that is why we have chosento quote it extensively.

90. consideration of the contemporaneous facts beginning withthe Budget Speech given by the Hon’ble Minister of Finance of the

AGovernment of India on 10[th] July, 2014 makes it clear that an amendmentto the MMDR Act was to be effected sooner than later. The Grant ofMining Leases Policy overlooks that and proceeds on the basis that thejudgment of the High Court delivered on 13[th] August, 2014 left theGovernment of Goa with no choice but to abandon the grant of miningleases through competitive bidding, even though that might be the mostBappropriate method of obtaining the best revenue for the public good.The Government of Goa had therefore “for the present” ruled out theprocess of going in for competitive bidding keeping also in mind that theState was virtually starved of funds and had to balance the equities andneeds of all, including the labour class, working class and other staff,Cmarkets in mining localities, public sector, mining lease holders, welfareneeds of the State, environment and fragile ecology of the State andgeneral well-being of the average Goan.

91. The State of Goa was also alive to the fact that many (if notall) mining lease holders had violated the terms of the mining lease orDsome statutory obligation. Therefore, it was decided to categorize theoffenders as follows:

Category I – will be those Mining Leases which have noviolations or very minimal violation of any provision / conditionof applicable laws/rules orders/permissions etc. or those whichcannot otherwise be referred to as ‘violations’.ECategory II – are those Mining Leases which have been foundto have violated the Provisions of the Mineral Concession Rulesincluding Rules 37 and 38 and other matters as mentioned in thePublic Accounts Committee Report/Justice Shah CommissionReport. In this category, the State Government will consider eachFof the cases on its own merits; and wherever the violations arenoticed subject to the same being remedied by paying appropriatePenalty/Fines including those of forfeiture, the State Governmentshall pass appropriate Orders in accordance with Law.

Category III – Mining leases will be those which are found toGhave violated substantially any provision / condition of applicablelaws / rules/orders/permissions etc., and in which cases the StateGovernment shall determine the Lease/reject their ‘Applicationfor the Second Renewal’.

92.The offences ranged, amongst others, from illegal sale of ore,Hsale of royalty challan without ore, encroachment of adjoining areas

outside the lease, over production in excess of the limit specified in theenvironmental clearance, unscientific mining operations, violations withrespect to payment of royalty amount, re-use of old royalty challans fordefrauding, illegal mining activities etc. etc. None of these are ‘minimal’violations. However, and this is important, the Grant of Mining LeasesPolicy made it clear that the following shall not be considered for renewalof mining leases: (i) Those facing an inquiry initiated pursuant to theorders of this Court in paragraph 88.2 of Goa Foundation for the violationof Rules 37 and 38 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960; (ii) Thoseindicted by the Justice M.B. Shah Commission; and (iii) Those indictedby the Public Accounts Committee. The Grant of Mining Leases Policystated that inquiries are already in progress “at various levels and foras”including Special Investigation Team and team of CharteredAccountants. We dare say that violations pointed out by the EAC oughtalso to have been taken into consideration.

93. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that iron ore mining in Goawas solely for commercial purposes – it was extracted primarily forexport to China and Japan without any value addition to the domesticindustry. True this brought in considerable foreign exchange –nevertheless iron ore extraction gave insignificant value addition (if atall) to Indian industry. The only advantage that iron ore extraction gaveto the State was in terms of royalty, but the larger benefit accrued to theprivate mining lease holder who could obtain mining lease on renewalvirtually free and without any social or welfare purpose. In other words,the State sacrificed maximizing revenue for no apparent positive reason,virtually surrendering itself to the commercial and profit making motivesof private entrepreneurs and ignoring the interests of Goan society ingeneral. Therefore, in principle, the decision of the State of Goa to notauction the grant of mining leases was flawed in that it did not serve thecommon or public or social good but primarily assisted in filling the coffersof private entrepreneurs. We are not inclined to go so far as to describethe decision as arbitrary since it is not necessary to do so.

94. However, we make it clear that we have dealt with this issuebecause it was canvassed before us. We are not inclined to quash thedecision of the State of Goa of not going in for competitive bidding forthe grant of fresh mining leases since it is not necessary in view of ourconclusion that fresh mining leases were required to be granted by theState of Goa.

A95. At this stage we must refer to submission made by Mr.C.U. Singh learned counsel appearing for some of the mining leaseholders. He submitted that prior to 12[th] January, 2015 the MMDR Actdid not permit the auction of mining leases. Therefore, even if the Stateof Goa was desirous of introducing competitive bidding for grant of freshmining leases it could not have done so. He drew our attention to SectionB11 of the MMDR Act (as it stood prior to its amendment in 2015) whichprovided preferential right for obtaining prospecting license or mininglease to the holder of reconnaissance permit or prospecting license.He submitted, placing reliance on Sandur Manganese and Iron OresLimited v. State of Karnataka[26]that since the MMDR Act is completeCcode in itself, the method or procedure for grant of lease cannot traveloutside the confines of the statute and the Mineral Concession Rules,1960 framed thereunder. Reference was made to paragraphs 40 to 43of the judgment:“In view of the specific parliamentary declaration as discussedDand explained by this Court in various decisions, there is noquestion of the State having any power to frame policy dehorsthe MMDR Act and the Rules.

In State of Assam v. Om Prakash Mehta[27] this Court in SCCpara 12 held that the MMDR Act, 1957 and the MC Rules, 1960Econtain complete code in respect of the grant and renewal ofprospecting licences as well as mining leases in lands belongingto the Government as well as lands belonging to private persons.

Again this Court in Quarry Owners’ Assn. v. State ofBihar[28] held that both the Central and the State Government actFas mere delegates of Parliament while exercising powers underthe MMDR Act and the MC Rules.

It is not open to the State Government to justify grantbased on criteria that are dehors the MMDR Act and theMC Rules. The exercise has to be done strictly inGaccordance with the statutory provisions and if there isany deviation, the same cannot be sustained. It is the normalrule of construction that when statute vests certain power inan authority to be exercised in particular manner then the said26 (2010) 13 SCC 127 (1973) 1 SCC 584H28 (2000) 8 SCC 655

authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in thestatute itself. This principle has been reiterated in CIT v. AnjumM.H. Ghaswala[29]SCC at p.644; Captain Sube Singh v. Lt.Governor of Delhi[30] and State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh.[31]"[Emphasis supplied by us].

Reference may also be made to paragraph 44 of the Report that readsthus:

“Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. Dushyant Dave, by drawing ourattention to the decision of this Court in TISCO Ltd. v. Union ofIndia [(1996) 9 SCC 709] , submitted that inasmuch as this Courthad upheld the grants based on “captive consumption”, there isno flaw or error in the recommendation of the State Governmentdated 6-12-2004. perusal of the above decision clearly showsthat it concerned with Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act whichrequires consideration of the extremely general criterion of theinterests of mineral development before granting second renewalof mining lease. Unlike in Section 11(3), no further criteriawere specified and it was in this background, this Court upheldon the facts of that case that relevant material taken into accountby the Committee set up by the Central Government rightlyincluded “captive consumption”. In view of the factual situation,the said decision can have no bearing on initial grants of mininglease where the only permissible criteria are the matters set outin Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act.”

96. The controversy in Sandur Manganese related to the grantof mining leases contrary to the provisions of Section 11 of theMMDR Act in that non-statutory criterion was taken intoconsideration de hors Section 11 of the MMDR Act forevaluating the applications and seeking approval of the CentralGovernment for granting mining lease. This was held to beimpermissible and it may be so. In any event, paragraph 44 ofthe Report makes it clear that there is distinction between therequirements of Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Section8(3) of the MMDR Act. Sandur Manganese is not applicableto the facts of the present case.

29 (2002) 1 SCC 633

30 (2004) 6 SCC 440

31 (1964) 4 SCR 485

A97. Similarly, reference was made to the Statement of Objectsand Reasons for the Bill introduced in 2015 to amend the MMDR Act. Itwas stated therein that “The present legal framework of the MMDRAct, 1957, does not permit the auctioning of mineral concessions.”

98. This submission need not detain us since we are not requiredBto adjudicate whether the State of Goa should have auctioned the miningleases or not. The State of Goa decided to renew the mining leases andwe are only called upon to decide (i) Whether the policy decision not toauction the grant of mining leases was arbitrary (we have already heldthat we are not required to express final opinion on this). We may,however, recall en passant that the Goa Grant of Mining Leases PolicyCproceeded on the basis that the auction of mining leases was permissibleand that had the sanction of the Court in Goa Foundation. It may beadded that the MMDR Act did not prohibit the auction of mining leases.(ii) Whether the second renewals were in accordance with law and theconstitutional principles.D

99.We may also note that the Constitution Bench in NaturalResources Allocation referred to the submission that if auction werethe only method of allocating natural resources (as it appears from CPIL)then the mandate would create conflict with some statutes includingthe MMDR Act. The Constitution Bench dealt with this submission inEparagraph 83 of the Report by observing:

“Moreover, if the judgment in 2G case[32] is to be read as holdingauction as the only permissible means of disposal of all naturalresources, it would lead to the quashing of large number oflaws that prescribe methods other than auction e.g. the MMDR Act.”

FHowever, the Constitution Bench did not advert to the consequence vis-à-vis the MMDR Act of holding that auction was not mandated as theonly method of allocating natural resource. Since the question does notarise in these cases, we decline to go into this issue – we need not finallyadjudicate whether the State of Goa should have auctioned the miningGleases but we are called upon to decide whether the grant of secondrenewals was valid in law.

Judicial review of renewals

100. In view of decisions of this Court, including in NaturalResources Allocation it is permissible for this Court to judicially review,H32 (2012) 3 SCC 1

to limited and restricted extent, the Grant of Mining Leases Policy,among other things, if it falls foul of Article 14 read with Article 39(b) ofthe Constitution and if it ignores the common or public or social good butbenefits private entrepreneurs, particularly when it involves the naturalresources, by sacrificing the maximization of revenue for the State.

101. In Natural Resources Allocation the Constitution Benchobserved that “Alienation of natural resources is policy decision, andthe means adopted for the same are thus, executive prerogatives.However, when such policy decision is not backed by social or welfarepurpose, and precious and scarce natural resources are alienated forcommercial pursuits of profit maximising private entrepreneurs, adoptionof means other than those that are competitive and maximise revenuemay be arbitrary and face the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

102.Similarly in Goa Foundation this Court declared that “It isfor the State Government to decide as matter of policy in what mannermining leases are to be granted in future but the constitutionality or legalityof the decision of the State Government can be examined by the Courtin exercise of its power of judicial review.”

103.Despite the dicta of the Constitution Bench and the declarationmade by this Court in Goa Foundation we do not propose to judiciallyreview the Grant of Mining Leases Policy but to consider on meritswhether the grant of second renewal to the mining leases was inaccordance with the Grant of Mining Leases Policy and the law.

104. In our opinion, in renewing the mining leases, the State ofGoa completely ignored several relevant and important and significantfactors giving the impression that the renewals were not quite fair orreasonable.

105.For one, the State ignored the fact that every single mininglease holder had committed some illegality or the other in varying degrees.To identify these illegalities (although they had already been identifiedby the Justice Shah Commission and by the EAC), Special InvestigationTeam had been set up as also team of Chartered Accountants. Insteadof waiting for report from any one of these teams, the State acted inviolation of the Grant of Mining Leases Policy and renewed the miningleases. Why was the report from the Special Investigation Team notawaited or called for and examined? In the Grant of Mining LeasesPolicy it was clearly and explicitly stated (as mentioned above) as follows:

A“Unless and until the Inquiry initiated pursuant to the Judgmentand Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against thoseMine Lease Holders found to be violating either Rule 37 or Rule38 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, or otherwise indicatedin the Report of the Justice Shah Commission/PAC report orfound to be engaged in, any kind of illegality of whatsoever natureBsuch as illegal Sale of Ore, Sale of Royalty Challan without Ore,Encroachment of adjoining areas outside the lease over productionin excess of the limit specified in the Environmental Clearance;those which have undertaken unscientific mining operations;those who have violated or have not paid the Royalty amount;Cthose who have re-used old Royalty Challans for defrauding;and those involved in Illegal Mining Activities shall not beconsidered for renewal of the Mining Leases.

For this purpose, presently the inquiries are in progress at variouslevels and foras including the investigation by the SIT Team, byDthe Team of Chartered Accountants which have been set up bythe State Government and after the inquiry is complete orduring the course of the inquiry where it is found that anyviolations have taken place, such persons shall not beconsidered for Grant/Renewal of the Leases.” [Emphasissupplied by us].E

106.Unfortunately, the undue haste in which the State acted givesthe impression that it was willing to sacrifice the rule of law for thebenefit of the mining lease holders and the explanation of satisfying theneeds of some sections of society for their livelihood (after keeping themin the lurch for more than two years) was mere fig leaf. The realFintention of the second renewal was to satisfy the avariciousness of themining lease holders who were motivated by profits to be made throughthe exploitation of natural resources.

107.The undue haste also needs to be looked at in the context ofthe statement made in the final paragraph of the Grant of Mining LeasesGPolicy to the effect that this Policy is an in-principle decision and wouldbe notified after it is vetted for legal requirements “from specificnecessities as also from financial view points”. In other words, the Grantof Mining Leases Policy as published on 4[th] November, 2014 was not afinal policy statement but only an intent that would take final shape afterdue vetting. The Grant of Mining Leases Policy was eventually publishedHon 20[th] January, 2015 but it was acted upon even before it was gazetted.108.A partial explanation for this hurry, if we may venture tosuggest, is that the State of Goa was aware (like everybody else) on 17[th]November, 2014 if not earlier, of the policy of the Government of Indiato auction the grant of mining leases which policy was made available inthe public domain on that date and suggestions invited. It is on 17[th]November, 2014 that the draft Mines and Minerals (Development andRegulation) Act, 2014 was published on the website of the Ministry ofMines of the Government of India. The policy of the Government ofIndia proposed to introduce Section 10B by way of an amendment to theMMDR Act and the proposed amendment made it very clear that if itwere to be accepted, auction of mining leases in respect of notifiedminerals (including iron ore) would become reality if not an obligation.It appears that to circumvent this rather uncomfortable policy, the Statepressed the accelerator on the renewal of mining leases from December2014 onward to benefit mining lease holders. So much so that in respectof 5 mining leases, the State overstepped the law and granted secondrenewal in early January 2015 to some entities without even waiting forany approval or deemed approval of the mining plan from the IndianBureau of Mines or any other authority.

109.This sequence of events acquires further significance whenit is recalled that an Ordinance to amend the MMDR Act was madeknown to the general public on 5[th] January, 2015 and promulgated by thePresident on 12[th] January, 2015 thereby mandating competitive biddingor auction for the grant of mining leases. The State of Goa perhapsanticipated this in view of the publication of the draft Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act, 2014 and therefore hurried into thesecond renewal of mining leases (notwithstanding the Grant of MiningLeases Policy) to defeat the introduction of the auction process. In factin the period from 5[th] January, 2015 to 12[th] January, 2015 the Governmentof Goa granted second renewal to as many as 56 mining leases andfrom 17[th] November, 2014 the State of Goa granted second renewal toas many as 75 mining leases. The sudden spurt of renewal of miningleases is beyond comprehension. The judgment and order of the HighCourt in Lithoferro cannot be used as shield for explaining the haste.

110. These facts must also be appreciated in the context that miningoperations were suspended in Goa with effect from 10[th] September,2012 due to an order passed by the State of Goa. Therefore, miningoperations having been suspended for more than two years, the State

ABC

Acould have certainly waited for few weeks more and taken an informedand reasoned decision on granting second renewal to mining leases –but waiting for few weeks could have led to an uncomfortable situationthat would have compelled the State of Goa to auction the mining leases,hence the haste.B111. This Court held in Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union ofIndia[33]that for the purposes of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act[34] theconcept of ‘mineral development’ encompasses the concept of captivemining, an assessment of its requirement by different industries as wellas the principle of equitable distribution (under Article 39(b) of theConstitution). It is not at all clear from the records before us that theCState had applied its mind to these and other factors including the reportof Justice Shah, the report of the EAC, the absence of any value additionto the domestic industry and the degradation of the environment as notedby the Expert Committee appointed by this Court in concluding that asecond renewal was ‘in the interests of mineral development’. MereDreliance on the acceptance or deemed acceptance of the Indian Bureauof Mines is not enough, as imagined by the State of Goa. The matter of‘interests of mineral development’ has to be considered holistically andnot in an isolationist manner.112. In this context, it is also necessary to point out that theENational Mineral Policy 2008 provided that: “To maximise gains fromthe comparative advantage which the country enjoys intra se mineraldevelopment will be prioritised in terms of import substitution, valueaddition and export, in that order.” Admittedly, iron ore is not extracted

33 (1996) 9 SCC 709F34 “8. Periods for which mining leases may be granted or renewed.- (1) The maximumperiod for which mining lease may be granted shall not exceed thirty years:Provided that the minimum period for which any such mining lease may be grantedshall not be less than twenty years.

(2) mining lease may be renewed for period not exceeding twenty years.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), if the State Government isGof opinion that in the interests of mineral development it is necessary so to do, it may,for reasons to be recorded, authorise the renewal of mining lease in respect of mineralsnot specified in Part and Part of the First Schedule for further period or periodsnot exceeding twenty years in each case.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) and sub-section (3), nomining lease granted in respect of mineral specified in Part or Part of the FirstHSchedule shall be renewed except with the previous approval of the Central Government.”

in Goa for import substitution, or value addition for domestic industry, butonly for the last option, that is, export. Can it reasonably be said that theexport of iron ore is in the interest of mineral development? We wereinformed that only one of the mining lease holders captively consumesthe extracted iron ore and it is evident from the Mineral Policy thatdespite mining operations having closed down for some period in otherStates, iron ore from Goa was not used in the domestic steel industry.Therefore, it is not at all clear who, other than the mining lease holdersmaking exports, was benefited by resumption of mining operations inGoa through second renewal.

113. The Mineral Policy clearly suggests that for period of fiveyears between 2006 and 2012 the mining lease holders committed variousillegalities and irregularities in the mining process. This is an indicationof their exploitative and rapacious attitude having little or no concern forthe environment, the fragile ecology of Goa or even the health and well-being of the average Goan. This irreparable damage was being causedby the mining lease holders without any benefit to the domestic industry.Therefore, while the mining lease holders may have contributed virtuallynothing to the domestic industry, they might have made considerableprofits through exports and might have also benefited the foreign exchangereserves of the country, but the real-time damage to the quality of healthand life of the average Goan and damage to the environment and ecologyof Goa is nevertheless incalculable or at least considerable – and exportbenefits cannot be weighed against health or the environment.

114. What is unfortunate about the entire commercial activity ofthe mining lease holders is that there was no social or public purposeattached to the mining operations. There was one and only one objectivebehind the mining activity and that was profit maximization. The renewalof the mining leases would give considerable profits to the mining leaseholders well beyond the benefits that could accrue to the State or to theaverage resident of Goa. It was observed by Justice Khehar in NaturalResources Allocation that material resources of the country should notbe dissipated free of cost or at consideration lower than their actualworth. This was not kept in mind and mining leases were renewed for asmall payment of stamp duty and royalty. It is therefore clear that theconsiderations that weighed with the State were not for the people ofGoa but were for the mining lease holders. This certainly cannot bedescribed as being “in the interests of mineral development.”

A115. With the mining lease holders violating virtually everyapplicable law or legal requirement, it is clear that the rule of law wasnot their concern. The list of violations and their variety was documentedby the EAC and it makes for some very sad reading. To make mattersworse, it was clearly mentioned in the Grant of Mining Leases Policythat Special Investigating Team and team of Chartered AccountantsBwould look into all the violations but the State chose not to wait for anyof the reports. There is no explanation for this.

116. In this background, there is little to suggest that the Stateconsidered the requirements of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act in thatthe interests of mineral development was secondary while granting theCsecond renewal of mining leases. The entire exercise undertaken by theState was hasty charade, regardless of violations of the law by themining lease holders, without any benefit to the Indian industry and withoutany concern for the health of the average Goan.

117. The undue haste with which the State granted the secondDrenewal of mining leases particularly after the amendments proposed tothe MMDR Act were placed in the public domain by the Government ofIndia (relating to the auction of mining leases) is clear indication thatthe decision of the State was not based on relevant material and notnecessarily triggered by the interests of mineral development. The veryElarge number of renewals granted over comparatively brief period is aclear indication that the State did not have ‘mineral development’ inmind but had some other non-statutory interests while taking its decisionto grant second renewal to the mining leases. The haste with whichthe State took its decision also needs to be understood in the backgroundof the fact that mining had been suspended by the State in SeptemberF2012 that is more than two years prior to the grant of second renewals.The urgency suddenly exhibited by the State therefore seems to be make-believe and motivated rather than genuine.

118. Facts from the record also disclose some interestinginformation regarding the second renewal of mining leases. The tableGbelow indicates that except 13 mining leases, all the others were renewedafter publication of the draft Mines and Minerals (Development andRegulation) Act, 2014 on 17[th] November, 2014. The table is given belowand is self explanatory:

119. Of the 13 mining leases renewed in November 2014, it isfound that according to the State of Goa all of them are Category-Iviolators (except Geetabala M.N. Parulekar who is Category–IIviolator). However, it was pointed out by learned counsel appearing onbehalf of Goa Foundation that the report of the Vishwanath Anand EACindicates that recommendation was made to revoke the environmentalclearance in respect of 6 mining lease holders; additionally, none of themining lease holders had approval from the National Board for Wildlife(where required); all of them (except 2) had mined in excess of thepermissible limit under the environmental clearance; all of them hadindulged in dump mining; some of them were guilty of encroachments;in almost every case the mining activity intersected ground water leveland none of the mining lease holders had permission for ground waterwithdrawal. These cannot be described as minor violations but wereactually multiple violations in almost all cases. How could the State ofGoa and MoEF overlook these recommendations and multiple violations?

120.It may be recalled that the Mines and Minerals (DevelopmentandRegulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 came into force on 12[th]January, 2015 and on that day as many as 31 mining leases were renewed.In respect of 5 mining leases renewed in January, 2015 the report fromthe Indian Bureau of Mines was called for in January, 2015 itself and themining leases were renewed without receipt of the report from the IndianBureau of Mines and before expiry of the mandatory period for submittingthe report in terms of the the second proviso to Rule 24A(3) of theMineral Concession Rules, 1960. In other words, without even receiptof any report from the Indian Bureau of Mines and even before theexpiry of the statutory waiting period, the State of Goa renewed somemining leases. This is patently illegal.

A121.We were informed by the learned Additional Solicitor Generalthat of the 88 mining leases that were renewed, 38 of them are notworking for variety of reasons – making their renewal an emptyexercise.

122.These facts are mentioned in the context of the undue hasteBshown by the State of Goa in granting second renewal to the miningleases keeping the following dates in mind:

17[th] November, 2014 – The draft Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Act, 2014 was uploaded on thewebsite of the Ministry of Mines of the Government of India.

C5[th] January, 2015 – Approval of the Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 bythe Cabinet of the Government of India became public knowledge.

12[th] January, 2015 – President of India promulgated the Minesand Minerals (Development and Regulation) AmendmentDOrdinance, 2015.

123.It is possible that the State did have some serious governanceissues to contend with as mentioned in the Grant of Mining Leases Policy,namely, since iron ore mining had been suspended for more than twoyears, the State faced lack of funds resulting in its having difficulty inEundertaking infrastructure projects and other activities. The State hadalso to contend with the adverse effects faced by large population thatwas directly or indirectly dependent on the mining sector. Additionally,the transport sector was affected as well as barges used for transportthrough rivers from jetties. The stoppage of mining operations thereforeaffected several categories of stakeholders including small business orFsmall commercial ventures and workers/labour. The Grant of MiningLeases Policy also noted that there was tremendous loss of foreignexchange of about $8 billion through exports and more than Rs. 850crores towards loans/advances on the mining sector for variety ofactivities as well as about Rs. 1000 crores towards housing, businessGand other loans. Over all there was slump in economic activity whichalso had an impact on the education sector etc.

124.The State has projected virtual chaos (which could be anexaggeration) but that is why we have left open the issue of arbitrarinessof the policy decision. Nevertheless the State is bound by the law, howeverHuncomfortable it might be in granting second renewal in terms of Section

8(3) of the MMDR Act. Therefore, on an overall consideration of allaspects of the case, we are of opinion that the decision of the State ofGoa to quickly renew the mining leases while ostensibly complying withthe requirements of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act and therebyjettisoning the rule of law was unjustified.

Whether fresh environmental clearances were required to beobtained by the mining lease holders?

125.The question whether the mining lease holders required freshenvironmental clearances arises in the context of paragraph 82 of thedecision rendered in Goa Foundation quoted above. It must be statedthat some mining lease holders had environmental clearances under EIA1994 while others under EIA 2006. Notwithstanding this, since we haveheld that fresh mining leases were required to be granted, it follows thatfresh environmental clearance is required to be obtained by those whoare granted fresh mining lease.126.That apart, the materials before the Court while deciding GoaFoundation included the report of the Justice Shah Commission, thereport of the EAC and the report of the Expert Committee constitutedby the Court by orders dated 11[th] November, 2013 and 18[th] November,2013. On combined reading of the material before it, the Court took abroad view that large-scale mining of iron ore led to several adverseimpacts including those related to the environment, ecology and healthof the people of Goa and that these illegalities and irregularities werecommitted by almost all (if not all) mining lease holders as reported bythe EAC. The Court also accepted the view of the Expert Committeethat the ecology of Goa was being degraded through indiscriminate miningand placed cap on the annual excavation of iron ore. It was noted thatmining by the lessees in Goa after 22[nd] November, 2007 was illegal andthat mining operations were suspended by the State of Goa on 10[th]September, 2012 and environmental clearances granted to the mineswere kept in abeyance by the MoEF on 14[th] September, 2012. Consideringall this, as well as the law laid down in Goa Foundation to the effectthat there is no automatic second renewal of mining lease but that asecond renewal must be granted in accordance with the provisions ofSection 8(3) of the MMDR Act, the Court used the expression “grantfresh environmental clearances for mining projects” in the passagereferred to above.

A127. We have already adverted to the report of the EAC. As faras the Expert Committee set up by the Court is concerned, it had furnishedan Interim Report dated 14[th] March, 2014 in which it noted large-scaledegradation of the environment and recommended placing an annualcap between 20 and 27.5 million tonnes on the extraction of iron ore inGoa. The Expert Committee noted the following (which makes for someBvery depressing reading):

“The production of iron ore has jumped from 14.6 million tons in1941 to 41.17 million tons in 2010-2011. In 1980s the productionwas about 10 MT/annum. The quantum jump in iron oreproduction in Goa was essentially due to steep rise inexports of fines and other low grade ore of 42% Fe contentto China. This has led to massive negative impacts on allecosystems leading to enhanced air, water, and soilpollution affecting quality of life across Goa. This is evidentby three important reports i.e. (i) Areawise Environmental QualityManagement (AEQM) Plan for the Mining belt of Goa by TataEnergy Research Institute, New Delhi and Goa (1997) and itwas submitted to the Directorate of Planning, Statistics, andEvaluation, Government of Goa, (ii) Environmental and SocialPerformance Indicators and Sustainability Markers in MineralsDevelopment Reporting Progress towards Improved EcosystemHealth and Human Well-being, Phase III by TERI andInternational Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada(2006) and (iii) the Regional Environmental Impact Study ofIron Ore Mining in Goa region sponsored by MoEF, New Delhi(2014) by Indian School of Mines. Besides the above three main

reports, number of scientific research papers on the impact ofiron ore mining on the environment and ecology of diverseecosystems were published by scientists working at GoaUniversity and NIO.

These reports and publications substantiate that themining, particularly the enhanced level of annualproduction contributed to adverse impacts on theecological systems, socio-economics of Goa and health ofpeople of Goa leading to loss of ecological integrity. This isdue to enhanced levels of pollutants, particularly RSPM and SPM,sedimentation of materials from dumps and iron ore in rivers,

estuaries and shallow depth (20 m) of sea water, agriculturalfields, high concentration of Fe and Mn in surface waters andtheir bioaccumulation.” [Emphasis supplied by us].

128. Faced with this material evidence before it, the Court tookthe view in Goa Foundation that fresh environmental clearances mustbe obtained. Unfortunately however, the State of Goa was moreconcerned with earning revenue rather than the health of the people ofGoa or enforcing the rule of law and therefore gave complete go-byeto the directions of this Court and to the concerns of the citizens of Goaand requested the MoEF to lift the abeyance on the environmentalclearances.

129.Acting on the request made by the State of Goa by lettersdated 7[th] January, 2015 and 5[th] February, 2015, the MoEF passed threeorders on 20[th] March, 2015. We have already adverted to the contentsof the orders passed on 20[th] March, 2015.

130.The first order of 20[th] March, 2015 is essentially acommunication documenting the variety of illegalities and irregularitiescommitted by the mining lease holders and that the Government of Indiawould be referring the cases for appropriate action and also requestingthe Principal Secretary, Environment in the Government of Goa to takenecessary action.

131.The second order of 20[th] March, 2015 is an OfficeMemorandum to the effect that project proponent will not be requiredto obtain fresh environmental clearance at the time of renewal of themining lease. This is misleading information and contrary to the decisionof this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[35] as well as the decisionrendered in Common Cause v. Union of India.[36]

132. It was held in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat[37],Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.[38] and Stateof M.P. v. Krishnadas Tikaram[39] (which decisions were followed inM.C. Mehta) that the renewal of lease, whether under the provisionsof the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or otherwise cannot be grantedwithout the lease holder complying with the necessary statutory

35 (2004)12 SCC 11836 (2017) 9 SCC 49937 (1987) 1 SCC 21338 1989 Supp (1) SCC 50439 1995 Supp (1) SCC 587

Arequirements particularly since the grant of renewal is fresh grant andmust be consistent with law. The principle of compliance with statutoryprovisions at the stage of renewal of lease was re-affirmed in CommonCause in paragraphs 105 and 106 of the Report. In paragraph 188(2) ofthe Report it was categorically held as follows:

B“(2) The renewal of mining lease after 27-1-1994 will requirean EC even if there is no expansion or modernisation activity orany increase in the pollution load.”

133. The third order of 20[th] March, 2015 is extremely cryptic inthe matter of lifting the abeyance order of 14[th] September, 2012 onCenvironmental clearances. While dealing with 35 mining leases for whichenvironmental clearance had been granted under EIA 1994 and 37 miningleases for which environmental clearance had been granted under EIA2006, the following is stated:

“It has been decided in the Ministry that the EC issued underD1994 notification in case they are valid and subsisting would notrequire fresh EC at the time of renewal (O.M. L-11011/15/2012-IA-II (M) dated 20.3.2015. Therefore it has been decidedto lift abeyance on the 72 cases of which 35 cases had beengranted EC under the provisions of EIA notification 1994 and 37cases had been granted EC under EIA notification 2006.”E[Emphasis supplied by us].

134. As mentioned above and as held in M.C. Mehta and CommonCause, the renewal of lease after 27[th] January, 1994 would require anenvironmental clearance. Therefore, mining lease holder having validenvironmental clearance obtained under EIA 1994 would still require aFfresh environmental clearance for renewal of the mining lease in 2014-2015 as the case may be. That being so there is no doubt at all that the35 cases referred to in the third order of 20[th] March, 2015 who had anenvironmental clearance under EIA 1994 did require fresh environmentalclearance at the time of renewal of the mining lease. Since they did nothave such fresh environmental clearance the renewal of these 35Gmining leases is clearly bad in law. Moreover, as held in M.C. Mehtaand Common Cause the validity of an environmental clearance grantedunder EIA 1994 is only for five years. Therefore all environmentalclearances granted under EIA 1994 had lost their validity before 2015,EIA 1994 having been replaced by EIA 2006.

135.As regards the 37 mining leases that had obtainedenvironmental clearance under EIA 2006, since the validity of theenvironmental clearance is for the estimated project life or maximumof 30 years in terms of paragraph 9 of EIA 2006 therefore no violationcan be found on the ground of validity for the time period. To this limitedextent, no interference is necessary at this stage in respect of these 37mining leases. We make it clear, however, that this is subject to ourconclusion that fresh mining leases were required to be granted by theState of Goa. Consequently, mining lease holder obtaining fresh mininglease would require fresh environmental clearance in terms of EIA2006.

136.What is disturbing is that notwithstanding several and variousviolations, the MoEF granted environmental clearance to 72 mining leases.It seems to us that the MoEF acted without any application of mind inlifting the order placing all the environmental clearances in abeyance.Since the entire exercise carried out by the MoEF on 20[th] March, 2015was mechanical, at the behest of the State of Goa, without due applicationof mind, without considering the multiple illegalities and irregularitiescommitted by the mining lease holders or passing on the buck to theState of Goa and without considering relevant material such as the reportof the EAC and the Expert Committee appointed by this Court, theexercise of lifting the abeyance order on 20[th] March, 2015 by the MoEFmust be held void and as directed by the Court in Goa Foundation allthe mining lease holders must obtain fresh environmental clearance fortheir mining project.

137.We were informed by the learned Additional Solicitor Generalthat show cause notices have now been issued to some mining leaseholders demanding huge amounts - some running into hundreds of croresof rupees towards value of ore extracted in excess of the environmentalclearance. We were handed over some sample show cause notices(about 12) issued in September and October 2017 and the figures arequite staggering – the demand raised being about Rs. 1500 crores!Similarly, from the Summary of Mining Audit Report submitted by theauditors (and handed over to us by the learned Additional SolicitorGeneral – for the period July 2016 to December 2016) the amountdemanded (including interest) by the State of Goa from the mining leaseholders through show cause notices issued is about Rs. 1500 crores!And without making any serious attempt to recover such huge amounts,

Athe State of Goa has granted second renewal of mining leases and theMoEF played ball by lifting the abeyance order in respect of theenvironment clearances. The inferences that can be drawn are quite obvious.

138.We must emphasise that issues impacting society are requiredto be looked at holistically and not in disaggregated manner. An overallBperspective is necessary on such issues including issues that impact onthe environment and the people of community or region or the State.It is for this reason that it is necessary to look at them broadly otherwiseif that broader perspective is lost everyone will be loser and no one willbe real beneficiary. One or two violations here and there may be wishedaway as inconsequential, but multiple violations by several persons canCresult in serious problems. As the novelist and philosopher Ayn Randhad said: We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequencesof evading reality. Therefore, there is no doubt that the Mineral Policy,the Grant of Mining Leases Policy, the amendment to the MMDR Act,the report of the EAC and the report of the Expert Committee must beDconsidered in the larger context of constitutionalism, the rule of law,environmental jurisprudence as well as the fundamental right of the peopleof Goa to have clean air and protection of the fragile ecology. Governancecannot and should not be carried out de hors the interests of the peopleand some uncomfortable decisions may be inevitable for balancing theequities.E

139. Finally, controversy (wholly unnecessary in our view) wasraised with regard to the period of validity of the environmental clearancegranted under EIA 1994. Firstly, in the view that we have taken, thevalidity period of an environmental clearance under EIA 1994 is academicsince fresh environmental clearance was necessary at the time ofFrenewal of lease. Secondly, the period of validity of an environmentalclearance was considered in M.C. Mehta and it was clearly held that itis valid for 5 years only. In paragraph 77 of the Report it was observed:

“We are unable to accept the contention that the notificationdated 27-1-1994 would not apply to leases which come up forGconsideration for renewal after issue of the notification. Thenotification mandates that the mining operation shall not beundertaken in any part of India unless environmental clearanceby the Central Government has been accorded. The clearanceunder the notification is valid for period of five years. Innone of the leases the requirements of the notification were

complied with either at the stage of initial grant of the mininglease or at the stage of renewal. Some of the leases were freshleases granted after issue of the notification. Some were casesof renewal. No mining operation can commence without obtainingenvironmental impact assessment in terms of the notification.”[Emphasis supplied by us].

similar view was expressed in paragraph 87 in Common Cause. Anycontrary view expressed in any notification issued by MoEF (includingthe notification of 15[th] January, 2016) cannot overrule decisions of thisCourt and is void to the extent that it does so.

140.It was submitted that all relevant notifications on the subjecthad not been placed before the Court and hence an erroneous conclusionwas arrived at with respect to EIA 1994. We propose to deal with thenotifications placed before us.

141.The notification of 27[th] January, 1994 (EIA 1994) deals withsite clearance in paragraph 2.II(d). This provides, inter alia, that siteclearance will be granted for mining operation by the CentralGovernment and that site clearance will be valid for period of fiveyears for commencing the operation or mining. Paragraphs 2.III(a) and2.III(c) of the notification deal with the procedure for obtainingenvironmental clearance, but do not provide for the validity period of theenvironmental clearance.

142.A notification of 4[th] May, 1994 refers to the notification of27[th] January, 1994 and substitutes paragraph 2.III(c) therein and providesthat the environmental clearance “shall be valid for period of five yearsfrom commencement of the construction or operation.” What thisprovides, therefore, is that if environmental clearance is granted on aparticular date and the mining operation starts on later date, then thevalidity of the environmental clearance commences from the later dateand is valid for five years from that date. This was reiterated in thenotification of 10[th] April, 1997.

143.The validity of an environmental clearance is specificallyprovided for in EIA 2006 in paragraph 9 thereof. As far as we areconcerned, it provides that in respect of mining operations, theenvironmental clearance would be valid for the “project life as estimatedby Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert AppraisalCommittee subject to maximum of thirty years for mining projects….”.

A144. For no apparent reason and after EIA 2006, the issue of thevalidity of an environmental clearance granted under EIA 1994 wasraked up and notification was issued by the MoEF on 21[st] August,2013 in which it was noted that the notification of 4[th] May, 1994 providedthat “the clearance granted shall be valid for period of five years fromcommencement of the construction or operation”. Another notificationBof 21[st] August, 2013 goes on to say that the intent of the CentralGovernment has been and has always been that the validity of theenvironmental clearance is for five years “for” commencement of theconstruction or operation and not that the environment clearance is onlyfor five years “from” the commencement of construction or operation.CTherefore, the Central Government clarified in the notification of 21[st]August, 2013 that the expression “for period of five years” shall mean“for period of five years for commencement of the construction oroperation and not five years from commencement of the construction oroperation.” We do not see how this controversy really arises or itsrelevance to the present case, but we refer to it since submissions wereDmade to explain the distinction between “for” five years and “from” fiveyears in respect of the validity of an environmental clearance.

145.It is perhaps sought to be contended that if environmentalclearance is granted and mining operations commence within the fiveyear period, then the environmental clearance under EIA 1994 is validEtill the project or the mining lease period is over. We cannot see howsuch an inference can be drawn. Moreover, this submission overlooksthe decisions in M.C. Mehta and Common Cause which accept theview that the validity of an environmental clearance granted under EIA1994 is only five years as also the view that valid environmentalFclearance is necessary for the renewal of mining lease. No notificationof the MoEF can overrule decisions of this Court. As far as EIA 2006 isconcerned this submission is academic and not relevant since paragraph9 of EIA 2006 provides that the environmental clearance would be validfor the estimated project life subject to maximum of 30 years.

G146.Learned counsel for the mining lease holders also relied upona decision of the Delhi High Court in S. N. Mohanty v. Union of India[40]to contend that notwithstanding notification issued by MoEF on 4[th]April, 2011 it was not obligatory for mining lease holder to obtain afresh environmental clearance at the time of renewal of lease, if the

H40 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4000

environmental clearance was subsisting. In that case, the petitioner hadan environmental clearance obtained under EIA 2006 on 15[th] January,2007 and the first renewal of the mining lease was due on 2[nd] April,2012. In that context, it was submitted that it was not necessary for thepetitioner to obtain environmental clearance for renewal of the mininglease. The Delhi High Court took the view that: “… if person has avalid and subsisting EC [environmental clearance] at the point of timehe seeks renewal of the mining lease, he would still be required toobtain another EC prior to the grant of renewal by the respondents.That, in our view, is not the intent and purport of the Supreme Courtdirections in M.C. Mehta.” This question does not arise in the contextof EIA 1994.

147.One final submission before us was that these cases bereferred to Bench of 9 learned judges since the constitutional validityof the Goa, Daman & Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition & Declarationof Mining Leases) Act, 1987 was under challenge in some cases and thedecision in those cases would perhaps render the present proceedingsinfructuous. In some of these pending cases, this Court had passed anorder on 29[th] October, 2002 to await the decision of 9 learned judges inProperty Owners’ Association v. State of Maharashtra.[41] We are notat all inclined to accept this request and mention it only to reject it.

Correctness of the decision of the High Court in Lithoferro

148. As far as the SLPs are concerned (SLP (C) No. 32138 of2015 and SLP (C) Nos. 32699-32727 of 2015) we set aside the judgmentand order dated 13[th] August, 2014 of the High Court in view of ourconclusion that the State of Goa was required to grant fresh licences interms of the decision of this Court in Goa Foundation. The High Courtproceeded on the erroneous basis that it could direct the State of Goa togrant second renewal of the mining leases notwithstanding the directionin Goa Foundation.

Conclusions and directions

149.In view of our discussion, we arrive at the followingconclusions:

1. As result of the decision, declaration and directions of thisCourt in Goa Foundation, the State of Goa was obliged to grant

41 (2013) 7 SCC 522 dated 20th February, 2002

Afresh mining leases in accordance with law and not secondrenewals to the mining lease holders.

2. The State of Goa was not under any constitutional obligation togrant fresh mining leases through the process of competitivebidding or auction.B3. The second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State ofGoa was unduly hasty, without taking all relevant material intoconsideration and ignoring available relevant material andtherefore not in the interests of mineral development. The decisionwas taken only to augment the revenues of the State which isCoutside the purview of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. Thesecond renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goais liable to be set aside and is quashed.

4. The Ministry of Environment and Forest was obliged to grantfresh environmental clearances in respect of fresh grant of miningleases in accordance with law and the decision of this Court inDGoa Foundation and not merely lift the abeyance order of 14[th]September, 2012.

5. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Lithoferro v. Stateof Goa (and batch) giving directions different from those givenEby this Court in Goa Foundation is set aside.6. The mining lease holders who have been granted the secondrenewal in violation of the decision and directions of this Court inGoa Foundation are given time to manage their affairs andmay continue their mining operations till 15thMarch, 2018.However, they are directed to stop all mining operations withFeffect from 16thMarch, 2018until fresh mining leases (not freshrenewals or other renewals) are granted and fresh environmentalclearances are granted.

7. The State of Goa should take all necessary steps to grant freshmining leases in accordance with the provisions of the MinesGand Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. TheMinistry of Environment and Forest should also take all necessarysteps to grant fresh environmental clearances to those who aresuccessful in obtaining fresh mining leases. The exercise shouldbe completed by the State of Goa and the Ministry ofHEnvironment and Forest as early as reasonably practicable.

8. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to ensure that theSpecial Investigation Team and the team of CharteredAccountants constituted pursuant to the Goa Grant of MiningLeases Policy 2014 give their report at the earliest and the Stateof Goa should implement the reports at the earliest, unless thereare very good reasons for rejecting them.

9. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to expedite recoveryof the amounts said to be due from the mining lease holderspursuant to the show cause notices issued to them and pursuantto other reports available with the State of Goa including thereport of Special Investigation Team and the team of CharteredCAccountants.

150. The writ petitions and SLPs are disposed of in accordancewith the above conclusions and directions.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Petitions disposed of.