CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED versus GOA FOUNDATION & ORS.

[2020] 3 S.C.R. 533

CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

GOA FOUNDATION & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 839 of 2020 Etc.)

JANUARY 30, 2020

[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]

Mines and Minerals:

Supreme Court in Goa Foundation II case setting aside secondrenewal of mining leases, gave time to the mining leaseholders (whowere given second renewal) to manage their affairs till 15.3.2018and were directed to stop all mining operations w.e.f. 16.3.2018 –State decided to permit the mining leaseholders to pay royalty onthe minerals already mined till 15.3.2018 and transport the same –In writ petition challenging order of the State High Court by interimorder suspended transportation of all minerals and by final orderquashed the decision of the State – Appeal to Supreme Court bymining leaseholders – Held: In view of the decision in GoaFoundation II case, and two further orders passed by the sameBench (permitting transportation of royalty paid minerals lying onjetties on or before 15.3.2018) and in view of legislative policy asper Rule 12(1)(gg) of Mineral Concession Rules granting six monthsperiod for removal of the minerals, the mineral on which royaltywas paid should be allowed to be transported – Minerals (Otherthan Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) ConcessionRules, 2016 – r. 12(1)(gg).

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The direction given in paragraph 154.6 of *GoaFoundation II Case is two-fold. Firstly, the mining leaseholdersare given time to manage their affairs and to continue their miningoperations till 15.3.2018. The second is negative direction. Theyare directed to stop all mining operations with effect from16.3.2018 until fresh mining leases (not fresh renewals or otherrenewals) are granted and fresh environmental clearances aregranted. [Para 24][543-F-G]

CDEF

2. Applying the principle of plain and literal interpretation,the direction would stop all mining activities from 16.3.2018.However, from the date of the order i.e. 7.2.2018 till 15.3.2018,the lessees were permitted to continue with the mining activitiesand manage their affairs. [Para 25][543-H]

B3. perusal of clause (gg) of Rule 12(1) of Minerals (Otherthan Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) ConcessionRules, 2016 would reveal, that on the expiry or soonertermination of the lease term, six months period is granted tothe lessees to remove for its own benefit, all or any ore mineralexcavated during the currency of the lease, engines, machinery,Cplant, buildings, structures, tramways, railways and other works,erections and conveniences which may have been erected, setup or placed by the lessee in or upon the leased lands. Anexception is carved out in case of lease being terminated fordefault of the lessee wherein, period so to be granted is not lessDthan three months and not more than six calendar months aftersuch termination. However, it is subject to the lessee paying therents, rates and royalties payable under the Act and the Rulesmade thereunder. [Para 31][546-E-G]4. If this Court in *Goa Foundation-II case intended toEprohibit the mining as well as transportation of the minerals/ironore with effect from 16.3.2018 nothing precluded it from doingso. However, the words used were that the lessees are permittedto manage their affairs and are permitted to continue mining till15.3.2018. The only prohibition contained in the said order after15.3.2018 is for carrying out mining operations. Not only this butFthe same Bench which has decided the *Goa Foundation-II caseitself on two occasions has permitted the mineral to betransported from the jetties. There is no rationale in differentiatingbetween the iron ore which is either at the jetties or at thestockyards or pitheads, if the same is mined prior to the date ofGthe prohibition i.e. 15.3.2018. There is no doubt that the ownershipof the ore is that of the party that has raised the ore. The orewhich has been permitted to be transported is on condition ofpayment of royalty. There is no reason why the owners shouldnot be allowed to transport their own ore. [Para 32][547-B-D]

5. Taking overall view of the matter i.e. paragraph 154.6 ofthe judgment of this Court in *Goa Foundation-II case; the ordersdated 4.4.2018 and 11.5.2018 passed by the same Bench whichdelivered the judgment in *Goa Foundation-II case permittingthe minerals/iron ore to be transported which were royalty paidand which was lying on the jetties on or before 15.3.2018; andthe legislative policy granting six months’ period for removal ofthe mineral for the benefit of the lessees, the view taken by theDivision Bench of the High court is not correct. [Para 32][546-G-H; 547-A]

Goa Foundation v. Union of India & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC590 : [2014] 5 SCR 302; *Goa Foundation v. SesaSterlite Limited & Ors. (2018) 4 SCC 218 : [2018] 2SCR 361 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2014] 5 SCR 302referred toPara 9[2018] 2 SCR 361referred toPara 10

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 839 of2020.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2018 of the High Courtof Bombay at Goa in Public Interest Litigation WP No. 3 of 2018.

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 840-842, 843, 844-846, 847, 848 of 2020, S.L.P.(Civil) No. 22035 of 2019.

Vikramjit Banerjee, Atma Ram N.S. Nadkarni, ASGs, GourabBanerji, Mukul Rohatgi, Dhruv Mehta, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Ajit KumarSinha, Debal Banerji, Sr. Advs., Ninad Laud, Nikhil Vaze, Aditya PratapSwain, Jayant Mohan, Ms. Ishita Mishra, Luis Fernandes, Yashraj SinghDeora, Ms. Sonal Mashankar, Ms. Shivangi Sud, Sumit Goel, KshatrashalRaj, Ms. Tanya Chaudhary, Ivy D’Costa (for M/s. Parekh & Co.,), RajKishor Choudhary, Mr. Ivo D’Costa, Prashant Bhushan, PranavSachdeva, Hemanth Pothula, Pratap Venugopal, Akhil Abraham Roy,Ayushi Gaur, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Anurag Sharma, Ayush Anand, ShishirDeshpande, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Raj Bahadur, Mrs. Neelam Chand,Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Ayush Anand, Siddhartha Sinha, Ms. Ruchira Gupta,Anjuman Tripathy, Aman Varma, Advs. for the appearing parties.

AJUDGMENT

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered :

-SLP(C) NOS. 12449, 1232812330, D. NO(S).17815,

25711-25713, 24831, 24830 OF 2018

B1. Delay condoned.

2. Permission to file Special Leave Petition (Civil) D.No.17815 of2018 is granted.

3. Leave granted.

4. The factual scenario and the questions of law involved beingCcommon, all these appeals are being heard and decided together.

5. The present proceedings have chequered history.

6. Since the Government of India received information about therampant exploitation of natural resources in Iron Ore mining sector inthe State of Goa, it appointed Justice M.B. Shah, former judge of thisDCourt, as Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissionsof Inquiry Act, 1952, by Notification dated 22.11.2010.

7. Justice Shah visited Goa and after calling for and receivinginformation from various authorities as well as mining leaseholders,submitted reports to the Government of India on 15.3.2012 and 25.4.2012.EThe reports were tabled in Parliament on 7.9.2012 along with an ActionTaken Report. Consequently, the Government of Goa passed an orderdated 10.9.2012 restraining/suspending all mining operations in the Statewith effect from 11.9.2012. The Ministry of Environment and Forest(MoEF) of the Government of India also kept in abeyance theFenvironmental clearances granted to 139 mines (actually 137 mines –the figure of 139 on account of some duplication) in the State of Goa byan order dated 14.9.2012.

8. Subsequent to the reports given by Justice Shah, writ petitioncame to be filed by Goa Foundation in this Court being W.P.(C) No.435of 2012. The writ petition, being in the nature of public interest litigation,Gprayed, inter alia, for directions to the Union of India and the State ofGoa to take steps to terminate the mining leases where mining wascarried out in violation of various statutes. So also, various writ petitionscame to be filed in the Bombay High Court by several mining leaseholderschallenging the reports of Justice Shah and the consequent orders passedHby the State of Goa and the Union of India. All those petitions came to

be transferred to this Court to be heard along with W.P. (C) No. 435 of2012 filed by Goa Foundation.

9. All those petitions came to be decided by this Court by judgmentand order dated 21.4.2014[Goa Foundation vs. Union of India &Others[1]](hereinafter referred to as “Goa Foundation-I”) whereinthis Court , amongst other conclusions arrived at, held that all iron oreand manganese ore leases had expired on 22.11.2007 and any miningoperation carried out by the mining leaseholders after that date wasillegal. It was also held, that all the mining leaseholders had enjoyed afirst deemed renewal of the mining lease and for second renewal anexpress order was required to be passed in view of and in terms ofSection 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)Act, 1957. For second renewal of the mining lease, it was held, thatthe State Government must apply its mind and record reasons for renewalbeing in the interest of mineral development and the necessity to renewthe mining lease and the same should also be in conformity with theConstitutional provisions. It was also held, that the decision taken by theState of Goa could be examined by way of judicial review. It was alsoheld, that the order dated 10.9.2012 of the Government of Goa suspendingmining operations and the order dated 14.9.2012 of the MoEF,Government of India) directing the environmental clearances granted tothe mines in the State of Goa to be kept in abeyance were proper and, assuch, not required to be interfered with and that they would continue tilldecisions are taken to grant fresh leases and fresh environmentalclearances for mining projects.10. Thereafter, quite independent of the cases pending in this Court,writ petitions were filed by several mining leaseholders in the BombayHigh Court praying either for consideration of their applications for asecond renewal of the mining lease or for the grant of mining lease onsecond renewal. The High Court heard those writ petitions and by itsjudgment dated 13.8.2014 directed the State of Goa to execute the leasedeeds in favour of the leaseholders who had already paid stamp dutypursuant to the orders of the government in accordance with the GoaMineral Policy 2013 and to consider the applications of other leaseholdersin accordance with the conditions laid down by this Court in GoaFoundation-I (supra). This order of the High Court was made subjectmatter of challenge in Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Limited and

AOthers[2 ](hereinafter referred to as “Goa Foundation-II”). The saidchallenge came to be decided by this Court vide judgment and orderdated 7.2.2018 (Goa Foundation-II).

11. It will be apposite to refer to the conclusions and directionsgiven by this Court in Goa Foundation-II (supra)while deciding theBsaid challenge.

“Conclusions and directions

154. In view ofour discussion, we arrive at the followingconclusions.

C154.1. As result of the decision, declaration and directions ofthis Court in Goa Foundation [Goa Foundation v. Union ofIndia, (2014) 6 SCC 590] , the State of Goa was obliged to grantfresh mining leases in accordance with law and not secondrenewals to the mining leaseholders.

D154.2. The State of Goa was not under any constitutional obligationto grant fresh mining leases through the process of competitivebidding or auction.

154.3. The second renewal of the mining leases granted by theState of Goa was unduly hasty, without taking all relevant materialinto consideration and ignoring available relevant material andEtherefore not in the interests of mineral development. The decisionwas taken only to augment the revenues of the State which isoutside 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.F

154.4. The Ministry of Environment and Forests was obliged togrant fresh environmental clearances in respect of fresh grant ofmining leases in accordance with law and the decision of thisCourt in Goa Foundation [Goa Foundation v. Union of India,(2014) 6 SCC 590] and not merely lift the abeyance order of 14-G9-2012.

154.5. The decision of the Bombay High Courtin Lithoferro v. State of Goa [Lithoferro v. State of Goa, 2014SCC OnLine Bom 997 : (2015) 3 AIR Bom R 32] (and batch)giving directions different from those given by this Court in Goa

H2 (2018) 4 SCC 218

Foundation [Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC590] is set aside.

154.6. The mining leaseholders who have been granted thesecond renewal in violation of the decision and directionsof this Court in Goa Foundation [Goa Foundation v. Unionof India, (2014) 6 SCC 590] are given time to manage theiraffairs and may continue their mining operations till 15-3-2018. However, they are directed to stop all miningoperations with effect from 16-3-2018 until fresh miningleases (not fresh renewals or other renewals) are grantedand fresh environmental clearances are granted.

154.7. The State of Goa should take all necessary steps to grantfresh mining leases in accordance with the provisions of the Minesand Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. TheMinistry of Environment and Forests 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 of Environmentand Forests as early as reasonably practicable.

154.8. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to ensurethat the Special Investigating 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.

154.9. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to expediterecovery of the amounts said to be due from the mining leaseholderspursuant to the show-cause notices issued to them and pursuantto other reports available with the State of Goa including the reportof Special Investigating Team and the Team of CharteredAccountants.”

[Emphasis supplied by us]

12. It is the directions given in paragraph 154.6 in Goa Foundation-II (supra) which has given rise to the present appeals. By the directionin paragraph 154.6 (supra), this Court gave time to the miningleaseholders, who were granted the second renewal, to manage theiraffairs permitting them to continue their mining operations till 15.3.2018.

ABy the said direction, they were directed to stop all mining operationswith effect from 16.3.2018.

13. It is nobody’s case that any of the mining leaseholders havecontinued the mining operations after 15.3.2018. The only question, thatarises for consideration is as to whether the minerals which were minedBprior to 15.3.2018, can be permitted to be transported by the miningleaseholders or not.

14. Construing the directions of this Court in paragraph 154.6(supra) as restricting the mining operations till 15.3.2018 and not restrictingthe transport of the minerals already mined till 15.3.2018, the State ofCGoa by decision dated 21.3.2018 decided to permit the miningleaseholders to pay the royalty on the mineral which was already minedtill 15.3.2018 and transport the same.

15. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the Goa Foundation filedWrit Petition No. 3 of 2018 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. InDthe said petition, an interim order dated 28.3.2018 came to be passedwhereby, the transportation of all minerals was suspended.

16. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa whilefinally hearing the matter after elaborate discussion arrived at thefollowing finding:E“…According to our respectful interpretation thus, when theSupreme Court mandated five weeks’ time for arranging theaffairs, it meant completion of transportation as well.”

17. Observing the aforesaid, the Division Bench quashed and setaside the decision of the State of Goa dated 21.3.2018 permittingFtransportation of royalty paid iron ore. The Division Bench also held,that the State Government should take decision regarding its ownershiprights, as custodian of the mineral resources, and regarding its powerto take possession, to sell and dispose of iron ore in question and utilisethe proceeds for public purpose.

G18. Being aggrieved thereby, various appeals/petitions are filedbefore this Court. We may briefly set out the challenges and reliefsclaimed in each of the matters.

Appeal arising out of SLP(C) 12449 of 2018

The appellant/petitioner claims, that the appellant’s ore was beingHloaded for being shipped for export which came to be stopped in view of

CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED v. GOAFOUNDATION & ORS.

the interim order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dated28.3.2018. The grievance of the appellant is that the protection orderdated 4.4.2018 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil)Nos. 8483-8484 of 2018 (to which we will refer subsequently) did notextend to it as it was not party in the said SLP. The appellant, therefore,prays to permit the appellant to load on the barges and on the vessels,the iron ore which is royalty paid and which is brought on the jetties onor before 15.3.2018 so that it can be transported to their destinations.

Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12328-12330 of 2018

The appellant’s case is identical with the appellant in earlier appeali.e. Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.12449 of 2018. The iron ore minedby the appellant was in the process of being loaded in ship at High seathrough barges. However, due to the interim order of the High Courtdated 28.3.2018 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2018, the appellanthad to stop the same. The appellant is also not covered by the orderdated 4.4.2018 (supra) passed by this Court. The appellant, therefore,prays for similar direction as sought by the appellant in Appeal arisingout of SLP(C) No.12449 of 2018.

Appeals arising out of SLP(C) D. No.17815 of 2018

The appellant herein deals in export of iron ore. The appellantclaims to have entered into an international contract for export of oreand accordingly had made preparation and loaded barges to betransported to vessel berthed at High sea. However, in view of the interimorder dated 28.3.2018 (supra) it could not carry forward the saidoperations. The appellant is also not covered by the order dated 4.4.2018(supra) passed by this Court as it was not party in the SLP. The appellantalso claims the same reliefs as sought by the appellant in Appeal arisingout of SLP(C) No.12449 of 2018.

Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25711-25713 of 2018

The appellants herein are engaged in trade of minerals. Theappellants had purchased iron ore from the mine of some leaseholders.After purchasing, they have transported the same to their jetties andstockyards on or before 15.3.2018. The appellants in pursuance of theorder passed by this Court dated 11.5.2018 (to which also we will refersubsequently) are praying for permission to transport ore lying at jettiesand stockyards on their sale.

ABC

AAppeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.24831 and 24830 of 2018

The appellants in both these appeals herein submit, that thoughthey have extracted the iron ore prior to 15.3.2018, it is lying either at thestockyard or at the pithead and, therefore, seek permission to transportthe same.B

19. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counselappearing for the appellant in lead matter [i.e. Appeal arising out ofSLP(C) No.12449 of 2018], Shri Gourab Banerji, learned Senior Counseland Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, learned counsel for the other appellants.We have heard Shri A. N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional SolicitorCGeneral appearing for the State of Goa, Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learnedAdditional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India and Mr.Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Goa Foundation.20. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for theappellant would submit, that the perusal of paragraph 154.6 of the judgmentDof this Court in Goa Foundation-II (supra) would clearly show, thatwhat was permitted by this Court was continuation of mining till 15.3.2018.He submits, that there is specific prohibition in the said paragraph thatafter 15.3.2018 no mining activity could be carried on. He, therefore,submits, that what was done by this Court was to specifically prohibitmining after 15.3.2018. However, the order did not postulate restrictionEon transport of the iron ore which was already mined in the period offive weeks i.e. from 7.2.2018 [the date of the judgment and order of thisCourt passed in Goa Foundation-II (supra)] to 15.3.2018. He wouldsubmit, that the perusal of the order of this Court dated 4.4.2018 (passedin SLP(C) No.8483-8484 of 2018 and connected matters ) and 11.5.2018F[passed in SLP(C) No.12449 of 2018 and connected matters] wouldclearly show, that the intent of paragraph 154.6 (supra) was to prohibitthe mining from 16.3.2018 and not the transportation of the ore whichwas already mined prior to 15.3.2018.

21. Shri Rohatgi, relying on Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals (OtherGthan Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules,2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Rules), would further submit,that the legislative policy is to grant six calendar months to remove oremineral extracted from the date of the expiry or sooner termination ofthe lease term. He, therefore, submit, that taking into consideration thelegislative policy, it is necessary that the mining leaseholders be permittedHto transport the iron ore mineral which is already mined by them. He

submits, that the finding of the High Court that paragraph 154.6 (supra)also prohibits transportation of the mineral which is already mined priorto 15.3.2018, is not only totally incorrect but is in ignorance of the orderspassed by this Court dated 4.4.2018 and 11.5.2018.

22. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Goa alsosubmits, that the State has no objection for transportation of the mineralwhich is mined prior to 15.3.2018 and on which the royalty is paid to theGovernment.

23. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Goa Foundation,vehemently opposed the appeals. He would submit, that the mining leasesof the various lessees had already expired in 2007. They were illegallycontinuing their mining operations. He submits, that the same has beenfound in the judgment of this Court in Goa Foundation-I (supra). Hefurther submits, that in Goa Foundation-II (supra) this Court also foundthat there was rampant illegal excavation and, therefore, such stringentdirections were issued by this Court. He submits, that the Division Benchof the High Court has rightly construed the words “to manage theiraffairs” used by this Court in paragraph 154.6 (supra) to include allactivities relating to mining and transportation thereof. He submits, thatthe lessees in the period of seven weeks from 7.2.2018 till 15.3.2018have extracted 2.2 MT of iron ore. It is submitted, that if the permissionis granted to transport this iron ore, it will amount to giving premium forillegal activity of the leaseholder. He, therefore, vehemently submits,that all appeals are liable to be dismissed.

24. To appreciate the entire controversy, we have to considerwhat is the import of paragraph 154.6 of the judgment of this Court inGoa Foundation-II (supra).

The direction given in the said paragraph are two-fold. Firstly, themining leaseholders are given time to manage their affairs and to continuetheir mining operations till 15.3.2018. The second is negative direction.They are directed to stop all mining operations with effect from 16.3.2018until fresh mining leases (not fresh renewals or other renewals) aregranted and fresh environmental clearances are granted.

25. Applying the principle of plain and literal interpretation, thedirection would stop all mining activities from 16.3.2018. However, fromthe date of the order i.e. 7.2.2018 till 15.3.2018, the lessees were permittedto continue with the mining activities and manage their affairs.

A26. As could be seen, after the Government of Goa had taken adecision to permit the royalty paid iron ore to be transported which wasmined prior to 15.3.2018 by its decision dated 21.3.2018, the GoaFoundation had approached the High Court and the High Court hadstayed the said direction by its interim order dated 28.3.2018. The saidinterim order dated 28.3.2018 reads thus:B

“11. In the meantime, there shall be an ad interim relief in termsof the bracketed portion of prayer clause (d), which reads thus:

“Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, adirection to the State Government to order an immediateCsuspension of transport of all minerals related to the miningactivity of 88 leaseholders……”

27. Being aggrieved thereby, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.8483-8484 of 2018 came to be filed before this Court. The matter cameup for hearing before the same Bench which had delivered the judgmentDin Goa Foundation-II (supra). An order dated 4.4.2018 came to bepassed by the same Bench of this Court in the said Special Leave Petition(Civil) Nos. 8483-8484 of 2018. The said order dated 4.4.2018 passed inSpecial Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 8483-8484 of 2018 reads thus:

“It is categorically stated by learned counsel for the petitionersEthat the iron ore which is sought to be loaded on the vessels in the Portarea in Goa is royalty paid and it was removed and brought to the jettieson or before 15th March, 2018.

Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the iron orewhich is royalty paid and which is lying on the jetties on or before 15thFMarch, 2018 should be permitted to be loaded on the barges and on thevessels so that they can be transported to their destinations.

The State of Goa will ensure and confirm that only that iron ore isloaded which is royalty paid and which is lying in the jetties on or before15th March, 2018.

GInsofar as the other issues are concerned, since the matter isalready pending in the High Court, we do not propose to deal with themand leave it to the High Court to adjudicate.

The special leave petitions are disposed of”

28. An identical order dated 11.5.2018 came to be passed by theHsame Bench in the present lead appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 12449of 2018, which reads thus:

“Issue notice.

Mr. Shishir Deshpande and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learnedcounsel accept notice.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.

It is categorically stated by learned counsel for the petitionersthat the iron ore which is sought to be loaded on the vessels in thePort area in Goa is royalty paid and it was removed and broughtto the jetties on or before 15th March, 2018.

Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the ironore which is royalty paid and which is lying on the jetties on orbefore 15th March, 2018 should be permitted to be loaded on thebarges and on the vessels so that they can be transported to theirdestinations.

The State of Goa will ensure and confirm that only that ironore is loaded which is royalty paid and which is lying in the jettieson or before 15th March, 2018.

Insofar as the other issues are concerned, since the matter isalready pending in the High Court, we do not propose to deal withthem and leave it to the High Court 3 to adjudicate.

An allegation has been made by learned counsel appearing forGoa Foundation that rampant mining took place after the orderpassed on 7th February, 2018 till 15th March, 2018.

We would like to have full details about the mining that hastaken place during the period from 7th February, 2018 till 15thMarch, 2018.

We make it clear that there will be no movement of iron oreuntil further orders except the iron ore which has reached thejetties.

List the matter in the third week of July, 2018.”

29. It could thus be seen, that the Division Bench which haddelivered the judgment in Goa Foundation-II (supra) by subsequentorders dated 4.4.2018 and 11.5.2018 has permitted the iron ore whichwas royalty paid and which was lying on the jetties on or before 15.3.2018to be loaded on the barges and on the vessels so that it can be transportedto their destinations.

A30. It will also be relevant to refer to Rule 12(1)(gg) of the saidRules.

12. Terms and conditions of mining lease.- (1) Every mininglease shall be subject to the following conditions:

(gg) the lessee may, after paying the rents, rates and royaltiespayable under the Act and rules made thereunder or under thelease deed, at the expiry or sooner termination of the lease termCor within six calendar months thereafter (unless the lease isterminated for default of the lessee, and in that case at any timenot less than three calendar months nor more than six calendarmonths after such termination) take down and remove for its ownbenefit, all or any ore mineral excavated during the currency ofthe lease, engines, machinery, plant, buildings structures, tramways,Drailways and other works, erection and conveniences which mayhave been erected, set up or placed by the lessee in or upon theleased lands and which the lessee is not bound to deliver to theState Government or which the State Government does not desireto purchase.”

E31. perusal of clause (gg) of Rule 12(1) of the said Rules wouldreveal, that on the expiry or sooner termination of the lease term, sixmonths period is granted to the lessees to remove for its own benefit, allor any ore mineral excavated during the currency of the lease, engines,machinery, plant, buildings, structures, tramways, railways and otherFworks, erections and conveniences which may have been erected, setup or placed by the lessee in or upon the leased lands. An exception iscarved out in case of lease being terminated for default of the lesseewherein, period so to be granted is not less than three months and notmore than six calendar months after such termination. However, it issubject to the lessee paying the rents, rates and royalties payable underGthe Act and the Rules made thereunder.

32. Taking overall view of the matter i.e. paragraph 154.6 of thejudgment of this Court in Goa Foundation-II (supra); the orders dated4.4.2018 and 11.5.2018 passed by the same Bench which delivered thejudgment in Goa Foundation-II (supra) permitting the minerals/ironHore to be transported which were royalty paid and which was lying on

the jetties on or before 15.3.2018; and the legislative policy granting sixmonths’ period for removal of the mineral for the benefit of the lessees,we find that the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay Highcourt is not correct. If this Court in Goa Foundation-II (supra) intendedto prohibit the mining as well as transportation of the minerals/iron orewith effect from 16.3.2018 nothing precluded it from doing so. However,the words used were that the lessees are permitted to manage theiraffairs and are permitted to continue mining till 15.3.2018. The onlyprohibition contained in the said order after 15.3.2018 is for carrying outmining operations. Not only this but the same Bench which has decidedthe Goa Foundation-II (supra) itself on two occasions has permittedthe mineral to be transported from the jetties. We do not find, that thereis any rationale in differentiating between the iron ore which is either atthe jetties or at the stockyards or pitheads, if the same is mined prior tothe date of the prohibition i.e. 15.3.2018. There is no doubt that theownership of the ore is that of the party that has raised the ore. The orewhich has been permitted to be transported is on condition of paymentof royalty. We see no reason why the owners should not be allowed totransport their own ore.

33. It will not be out of place to mention here the specific stand ofthe State Government before the High Court that the State is monitoringto ensure that only such of the mineral is permitted to be transportedwhich is mined prior to 15.3.2018.

34. We are, therefore, inclined to allow all the appeals. Orderaccordingly. We set aside the impugned judgment and order dated4.5.2018 passed by the High Court and uphold the decision of the Stateof Goa dated 21.3.2018, which permits transportation of mineral/ironore which is mined prior to 15.3.2018.

35. Needless to state, that the transportation of the mineral wouldbe only in respect of such minerals on which royalty is paid. Theappellants/mining leaseholders would be permitted to transport the royaltypaid ore/mineral from the jetties/stockyard or pitheads on the basis ofthe valid transit permitsissued to them by the competent authority of theState Government.

36. Taking into consideration the legislative policy as contained inclause (gg) of Rule 12(1) of the said Rules, we direct that all suchtransportation shall be completed within period of six months fromtoday.

[2020] 3 S.C.R.

A37. It is needless to state that all other directions contained inparagraph 154 of the judgment of this Court in Goa Foundation-II(supra) shall be strictly complied with by the State of Goa.

38. All pending applications including the application for interventionshall stand disposed of.

SLP(C) No. 22035/2019

39. De-tagged. To be listed before the appropriate Bench in itsdue course.

CKalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals allowed.