Case: The Goa Foundation Vs. M/s. Sesa Sterlite Ltd. &amp; Others

mining projects….”.144. For no apparent reason and after EIA 2006, the issue of the validity of an environmental clearance granted under EIA 1994 was raked up and a notification was issued by the MoEF on 21st August, 2013 in which it was noted that the notification of 4th May, 1994 provided that “the clearance granted shall be valid for a period of five years from commencement of the construction or operation”. Another notification of 21st August, 2013 goes on to say that the intent of the Central Government has been and has always been that the validity of the environmental clearance is for five years “for” commencement of the construction or operation and not that the environment clearance is only for five years “from” the commencement of construction or operation. Therefore, the Central Government clarified in the notification of 21st August, 2013 that the expression “for a period of five years” shall mean “for a period of five years for commencement of the construction or operation and not five years from commencement of the construction or operation.” We do not see how this controversy really arises or its relevance to the present case, but we refer to it since submissions were made to explain the distinction between “for” five years and “from” five years in respect of the validity of an environmental clearance.145. It is perhaps sought to be contended that if environmental clearance is granted and mining operations commence within the five year period, then the environmental clearance under EIA 1994 is valid till the project or the mining lease period is over. We cannot see how such an inference can be drawn. Moreover, this submission overlooks the decisions in M.C. Mehta and Common Cause which accept the view that the validity of an environmental clearance granted under EIA 1994 is only five years as also the view that a valid environmental clearance is necessary for the renewal of a mining lease. No notification of the MoEF can overrule decisions of this Court. As far as EIA 2006 is concerned this submission is academic and not relevant since paragraph 9 of EIA 2006 provides that the environmental clearance would be valid for the estimated project life subject to a maximum of 30 years.146. Learned counsel for the mining lease holders also relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in S. N. Mohanty v. Union of India (2012 SCC OnLine Del 4000)to contend that notwithstanding a notification issued by MoEF on 4th April, 2011 it was not obligatory for a mining lease holder to obtain a fresh environmental clearance at the time of renewal of a lease, if the environmental clearance was subsisting. In that case, the petitioner had an environmental clearance obtained under EIA 2006 on 15th January, 2007 and the first renewal of the mining lease was due on 2nd April, 2012. In that context, it was submitted that it was not necessary for the petitioner to obtain environmental clearance for renewal of the mining lease. The Delhi High Court took the view that: “… if a person has a valid and subsisting EC [environmental clearance] at the point of time he seeks a renewal of the mining lease, he would still be required to obtain another EC prior to the grant of renewal by the respondents. That, in our view, is not the intent and purport of the Supreme Court directions in M.C. Mehta.” This question does not arise in the context of EIA 1994.147. One final submission before us was that these cases be referred to a Bench of 9 learned judges since the constitutional validity of the Goa, Daman & Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition & Declaration of Mining Leases) Act, 1987 was under challenge in some cases and the decision in those cases would perhaps render the present proceedings infructuous. In some of these pending cases, this Court had passed an order on 29th October, 2002 to await the decision of 9 learned judges in Property Owners’ Association v. State of Maharashtra. (2013) 7 SCC 522 dated 20th February, 2002)We are not at all inclined to accept this request and mention it only to reject it. Correctness of the decision of the High Court in Lithoferro148. As far as the SLPs are concerned (SLP (C) No. 32138 of 2015 and SLP (C) Nos. 32699-32727 of 2015) we set aside the judgment and order dated 13th August, 2014 of the High Court in view of our conclusion that the State of Goa was required to grant fresh licences in terms of the decision of this Court in Goa Foundation. The High Court proceeded on the erroneous basis that it could direct the State of Goa to grant a second renewal of the mining leases notwithstanding the direction in Goa Foundation. Conclusions and directions149. In view of our discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions:1. As a result of the decision, declaration and directions of this Court in Goa Foundation, the State of Goa was obliged to grant fresh mining leases in accordance with law and not second renewals to the mining lease holders.2. The State of Goa was not under any constitutional obligation to grant fresh mining leases through the process of competitive bidding or auction.3. The second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa was unduly hasty, without taking all relevant material into consideration and ignoring available relevant material and therefore not in the interests of mineral development. The decision was taken only to augment the revenues of the State which is outside the purview of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. The second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa is liable to be set aside and is quashed.4. The Ministry of Environment and Forest was obliged to grant fresh environmental clearances in respect of fresh grant of mining leases in accordance with law and the decision of this Court in Goa Foundation and not merely lift the abeyance order of 14th September, 2012.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]41. The Court was quite obviously aware that it was concerned, inter alia, with the second renewal of mining leases and yet it chose to recount the factual situation, make a declaration and pass a direction without adverting to the possibility of a second renewal of a mining lease. The Court was also conscious that the mining lease holders had carried out indiscriminate and illegal mining for about five years (from November 2007 to September 2012) and had made profits out of the illegal mining. The Court, in our opinion, was rather charitable in not penalizing the mining lease holders for the illegal mining carried out by them. But be that as it may, quite clearly, the sequence of events from September 2012 onwards, the appointment of a Monitoring Committee to dispose of the illegally mined ore, the declaration and direction unmistakably point to the intention of the Court to end the sordid chapter of illegal mining by the lease holders and start on a clean slate. Viewed in this perspective, we have no doubt that the Court really did intend the State of Goa to consider the grant of fresh leases in accordance with law.Unfortunately, the State of Goa was overtaken by events in that the High Court delivered its judgment in Lithoferro on 13th August, 2014 and while doing so, it misunderstood or incorrectly appreciated the decision of this Court in Goa Foundation and disagreed with the view of the State of Goa. While this Court had required the State of Goa to grant fresh mining leases and the State of Goa was willing to comply with this direction, the High Court instead directed it to execute mining leases under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act in respect of those who had paid the renewal fees or stamp duty. The High Court also directed the State of Goa to decide their pending second renewal applications within a period of three months keeping in mind the provisions of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act (presumably after paying the renewal fees or stamp duty in terms of the Government order of 21st February, 2013). The understanding by the High Court of the decision of this Court in Goa Foundation is totally incorrect.There is no doubt that the renewal of a lease is virtually the same as the grant of a fresh lease but a converse direction to grant a mining lease cannot be understood to mean granting a renewal of a mining lease. Obviously, the grant of a fresh lease is not the same as the renewal of a lease and when the Court in Goa Foundation required the State of Goa to grant a fresh lease, it did not require the State to renew the existing (expired) lease. The Court could have explicitly declared and directed the State of Goa to grant a second renewal of the mining leases rather than to say it in a roundabout manner that it should do so by granting a fresh lease equivalent to a renewal. We simply cannot accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the mining lease holders in this regard.Learned counsel for the mining lease holders contended that the very same learned judges that decided Goa Foundation permitted the State Government in Common Cause v. Union of India (2014) 14 SCC 155  )to consider granting a second renewal of mining leases under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. Therefore the requirement in Goa Foundation for the grant of? must be understood in a manner similar to what was directed in Common Cause.We are unable to accept this contention. The direction given in Common Cause was an interim direction and not a final direction as in Goa Foundation. Moreover, the facts in both cases are not at all similar so as to warrant a similar order being passed or understood. Finally, the fact that the same set of learned judges thought it fit to direct the grant of „fresh leases? in one set of cases and thought it fit to direct consideration of a „second renewal? in another set of cases indicates that the learned judges were aware of the difference in directions. Therefore when the leaned judges directed the grant of „fresh leases? in Goa Foundation it was a deliberate and conscious decision distinct and different from granting a second renewal of expired mining leases.58. In our opinion, the direction in Goa Foundation is quite clear and instead of considering the grant of a second renewal of the mining leases, the State of Goa was required to consider the grant of fresh mining leases. Therefore the decision of the State of Goa to grant a second renewal of the mining leases is erroneous, contrary to the decision in Goa Foundation and must be and is quashed.As mentioned in the Grant of Mining Leases Policy there were several options available to the State of Goa. It took the view that all its options were foreclosed post the decision of the High Court and it was obliged to grant a second renewal of the mining leases. We have already held that this was not so and that the decision to grant a second renewal of the mining leases was erroneous and fresh leases were required to be granted in accordance with the decision in Goa Foundation. In view of our conclusion, the discussion on whetherthe State of Goa should have auctioned the miningleases through a process of competitive bidding is now rendered academic. However, since detailed submissions were made by learned counsel on both sides, including by the learned Additional Solicitor General, we propose to express our views on the subject.It is therefore more than explicit that there is no constitutional requirement (let alone a mandate) for allocation of natural resources through the auction method (other than spectrum) but at the same time the auction process should not be given awithout any justification – the decision to give ais judicially reviewable though the scope of judicial review might be rather restricted. The melting pot of allocation of a natural resource, a social or welfare purpose and adherence to the requirements of Articles 14 and 39(b) of the Constitution in matters of policy was a 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 certainlyThere are exceptions, such as when the natural resource allocation is for aOn the other hand if the natural resource allocation iscommercial pursuits of profit maximising privatede hors any social or welfare purpose, then judicial review would be permissible and Article 14 of the Constitution would be attracted and if the executive action is found to be arbitrary, it would be struck down. Therefore, when it comes to natural resource allocation, the executive has a somewhat limited elbow room.Notwithstanding this, a Court must exercise restraint and not set aside Government policy only because it disagrees with it or because a better policy could be framed or simply because it has the power to set aside the policy. Policies framed by the State, after due consideration, must be respected and given enough elbow room and flexibility for implementation. Of course, there would be occasions when the implementation of a policy has teething problems or some lacuna is discovered at a slightly later stage, but that does not mean that policy itself is defective. Therefore, Courts must be very cautious and circumspect in diluting or setting aside a policy and must do so only if it is constitutionally unavoidable, otherwise good governance could be a casualty.76. The conclusions that could be drawn from all these decisions are: (i) It is not obligatory, constitutionally or otherwise, that a natural resource (other than spectrum) must be disposed of or alienated or allocated only through an auction or through competitive bidding; (ii) Where the distribution, allocation, alienation or disposal of a natural resource is to a private party for a commercial pursuit of maximizing profits, then an auction is a more preferable method of such allotment; (iii) A decision to not auction a natural resource is liable to challenge and subject to restricted and limited judicial review under Article 14 of the Constitution; (iv) A decision to not auction a natural resource and sacrifice maximization 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 a natural resource is for the common good or a social or welfare purpose, it cannot be dissipated in favour of a private entrepreneur virtually free of cost or for a consideration not commensurate with its worth without attracting Article 14 and Article 39(b) of the Constitution.As far as the environment, the fragile ecology of Goa and theof the average Goan and the rule of law is concerned, the Mineral Policy categorically states that the State had witnessed, from12 the peak of chaotic and unregulated mining without any concern for the fragile ecology and environment of the State or for the generalof an average Goan. Surely, all this cannot be ignored or brushed aside particularly since the exploitation of mineral resources for five years had no element of social or public purpose, no concern for society and no regard for the environment and the laws.A reading of the report of the EAC is disturbing and acutely highlights the damage to the environment and ecology by the mining lease holders. The complete indifference by all concerned is evident from a careful reading of the report.88. The decision of the High Court does not at all discuss the options available to the State of Goa, namely, second renewal of the mining leases versus auction of a natural resource. In fact it appears that the High Court was not at all alive to the possibility of an auction of the mining leases, notwithstanding the view canvassed by the learned Advocate General of the State of Goa.A consideration of the contemporaneous facts beginning with the Budget Speech given by the Hon?ble Minister of Finance of the Government of India on 10th July, 2014 makes it clear that an amendment to the MMDR Act was to be effected sooner than later. The Grant of Mining Leases Policy overlooks that and proceeds on the basis that the judgment of the High Court delivered on 13th August, 2014 left the Government of Goa with no choice but to abandon the grant of mining leases through competitive bidding, even though that might be the most appropriate method of obtaining the best revenue for the public good. The Government of Goa had thereforeruled out the process of going in for competitive bidding keeping also in mind that the State was virtually starved of funds and had to balance the equities and needs of all, including the labour class, working class and other staff, markets in mining localities, public sector, mining lease holders, welfare needs of the State, environment and fragile ecology of the State and generalof the average Goan.Be that as it may, there is no doubt that iron ore mining in Goa was solely for commercial purposes – it was extracted primarily for export to China and Japan without any value addition to the domestic industry. True this brought in considerable foreign exchange – nevertheless iron ore extraction gave insignificant value addition (if at all) to Indian industry. The only advantage that iron ore extraction gave to the State was in terms of royalty, but the larger benefit accrued to the private mining lease holder who could obtain a mining lease on renewal virtually 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 motives of private entrepreneurs and ignoring the interests of Goan society in general. Therefore, in principle, the decision of the State of Goa to not auction the grant of mining leases was flawed in that it did not serve the common or public or social good but primarily assisted in filling the coffers of private entrepreneurs. We are not inclined to go so far as to describe the decision as arbitrary since it is not necessary to do so.94. However, we make it clear that we have dealt with this issue because it was canvassed before us. We are not inclined to quash the decision of the State of Goa of not going in for competitive bidding for the grant of fresh mining leases since it is not necessary in view of our conclusion that fresh mining leases were required to be granted by the State of Goa.The controversy in Sandur Manganese related to the grant of mining leases contrary to the provisions of Section 11 of the MMDR Act in that acriterion was taken into consideration de hors Section 11 of the MMDR Act for evaluating the applications and seeking approval of the Central Government for granting a mining lease. This was held to be impermissible and it may be so. In any event, paragraph 44 of the Report makes it clear that there is a distinction between the requirements of Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act and Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. Sandur Manganese is not applicable to the facts of the present case.97. Similarly, reference was made to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Bill introduced in 2015 to amend the MMDR Act. It was stated therein thatpresent legal framework of the MMDR Act, 1957, does not permit the auctioning of mineral concessions.This submission need not detain us since we are not required to adjudicate whetherthe State of Goa should have auctioned the miningleases or not. The State of Goa decided to renew the mining leases and we are only called upon to decide (i) Whether the policy decision not to auction the grant of mining leases was arbitrary (we have already held that we are not required to express a final opinion on this). We may, however, recall en passant that the Goa Grant of Mining Leases Policy proceeded on the basis that the auction of mining leases was permissible and that had the sanction of the Court in Goa Foundation. It may be added that the MMDR Act did not prohibit the auction of mining leases. (ii) Whether the second renewals were in accordance with law and the constitutional principles.In view of decisions of this Court, including in Natural Resources Allocation it is permissible for this Court to judicially review, to a 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) of the Constitution and if it ignores the common or public or social good but benefits private entrepreneurs, particularly when it involves the natural resources, by sacrificing the maximization of revenue for the State.Despite the dicta of the Constitution Bench and the declaration made by this Court in Goa Foundation we do not propose to judicially review the Grant of Mining Leases Policy but to consider on merits whether the grant of second renewal to the mining leases was in accordance with the Grant of Mining Leases Policy and the law.104. In our opinion, in renewing the mining leases, the State of Goa completely ignored several relevant and important and significant factors giving the impression that the renewals were not quite fair or reasonable.105. For one, the State ignored the fact that every single mining lease holder had committed some illegality or the other in varying degrees. To identify these illegalities (although they had already been identified by the Justice Shah Commission and by the EAC), a Special Investigation Team had been set up as also a team of Chartered Accountants. Instead of waiting for a report from any one of these teams, the State acted in violation of the Grant of Mining Leases Policy and renewed the mining leases.Unfortunately, the undue haste in which the State acted gives the impression that it was willing to sacrifice the rule of law for the benefit of the mining lease holders and the explanation of satisfying the needs of some sections of society for their livelihood (after keeping them in the lurch for more than two years) was a mere fig leaf. The real intention of the second renewal was to satisfy the avariciousness of the mining lease holders who were motivated by profits to be made through the exploitation of naturalpolicy of the Government of India proposed to introduce Section 10B by way of an amendment to the MMDR Act and the proposed amendment made it very clear that if it were to be accepted, auction of mining leases in respect of notified minerals (including iron ore) would become a reality if not an obligation. It appears that to circumvent this rather uncomfortable policy, the State pressed the accelerator on the renewal of mining leases from December 2014 onward to benefit mining lease holders. So much so that in respect of 5 mining leases, the State overstepped the law and granted a second renewal in early January 2015 to some entities without even waiting for any approval or deemed approval of the mining plan from the Indian Bureau of Mines or any other authority.109. This sequence of events acquires further significance when it is recalled that an Ordinance to amend the MMDR Act was made known to the general public on 5th January, 2015 and promulgated by the President on 12th January, 2015 thereby mandating competitive bidding or auction for the grant of mining leases. The State of Goa perhaps anticipated this in view of the publication of the draft Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 2014 and therefore hurried into the second renewal of mining leases (notwithstanding the Grant of Mining Leases Policy) to defeat the introduction of the auction process. In fact in the period from 5th January, 2015 to 12th January, 2015 the Government of Goa granted a second renewal to as many as 56 mining leases and from 17th November, 2014 the State of Goa granted a second renewal to as many as 75 mining leases. The sudden spurt of renewal of mining leases is beyond comprehension. The judgment and order of the High Court in Lithoferro cannot be used as a shield for explaining the haste.110. These facts must also be appreciated in the context that mining operations were suspended in Goa with effect from 10th September, 2012 due to an order passed by the State of Goa. Therefore, mining operations having been suspended for more than two years, the State could have certainly waited for a few weeks more and taken an informed and reasoned decision on granting a second renewal to mining leases – but waiting for a few weeks could have led to an uncomfortable situation that would have compelled the State of Goa to auction the mining leases, hence theis not at all clear from the records before us that the State had applied its mind to these and other factors including the report of Justice Shah, the report of the EAC, the absence of any value addition to the domestic industry and the degradation of the environment as noted by the Expert Committee appointed by this Court in concluding that a second renewal was „in the interests of mineral development?. Mere reliance on the acceptance or deemed acceptance of the Indian Bureau of Mines is not enough, as imagined by the State of Goa. The matter of „interests of mineral development? has to be considered holistically and not in an isolationist manner.What is unfortunate about the entire commercial activity of the mining lease holders is that there was no social or public purpose attached to the mining operations. There was one and only one objective behind the mining activity and that was profit maximization. The renewal of the mining leases would give considerable profits to the mining lease holders well beyond the benefits that could accrue to the State or to the average resident of Goa. It was observed by Justice Khehar in Natural Resources Allocation that material resources of the country should not be dissipated free of cost or at a consideration lower than their actual worth. This was not kept in mind and mining leases were renewed for a small payment of stamp duty and royalty. It is therefore clear that the considerations that weighed with the State were not for the people of Goa but were for the mining lease holders. This certainly cannot be described as beingthe interests of mineral development.With the mining lease holders violating virtually every applicable law or legal requirement, it is clear that the rule of law was not their concern. The list of violations and their variety was documented by the EAC and it makes for some very sad reading. To make matters worse, it was clearly mentioned in the Grant of Mining Leases Policy that a Special Investigating Team and a team of Chartered Accountants would look into all the violations but the State chose not to wait for any of the reports. There is no explanation for this.116. In this background, there is little to suggest that the State considered the requirements of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act in that the interests of mineral development was secondary while granting the second renewal of mining leases. The entire exercise undertaken by the State was a hasty charade, regardless of violations of the law by the mining lease holders, without any benefit to the Indian industry and without any concern for the healthof the average Goan.The undue haste with which the State granted the second renewal of mining leases particularly after the amendments proposed to the MMDR Act were placed in the public domain by the Government of India (relating to the auction of mining leases) is a clear indication that the decision of the State was not based on relevant material and not necessarily triggered bythe interests of mineral development.The very large number of renewals granted over a comparatively brief period is a clear indication that the State did not have „mineral development? in mind but had some otherinterests while taking its decision to grant a second renewal to the mining leases. The haste with which the State took its decision also needs to be understood in the background of the fact that mining had been suspended by the State in September 2012 that is more than two years prior to the grant of second renewals. The urgency suddenly exhibited by the State therefore seems to beand motivated rather than genuine.It may be recalled that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 came into force on 12th 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 from the Indian Bureau of Mines was called for in January, 2015 itself and the mining leases were renewed without receipt of the report from the Indian Bureau of Mines and before expiry of the mandatory period for submitting the report in terms of the second proviso to Rule 24A(3) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. In other words, without even receipt of any report from the Indian Bureau of Mines and even before the expiry of the statutory waiting period, the State of Goa renewed some mining leases. This is patently illegal.The State has projected virtual chaos (which could be an exaggeration) but that is why we have left open the issue of arbitrariness of the policy decision. Nevertheless the State is bound by the law, however uncomfortable it might be in granting a second renewal in terms of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. Therefore, on an overall consideration of all aspects of the case, we are of opinion that the decision of the State of Goa to quickly renew the mining leases while ostensibly complying with the requirements of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act and thereby jettisoning the rule of law was unjustified.The question whether the mining lease holders required fresh environmental clearances arises in the context of paragraph 82 of the decision rendered in Goa Foundation quoted above. It must be stated that some mining lease holders had environmental clearances under EIA 1994 while others under EIA 2006. Notwithstanding this, since we have held that fresh mining leases were required to be granted, it follows that fresh environmental clearance is required to be obtained by those who are granted a fresh mining lease.The second order of 20th March, 2015 is an Office Memorandum to the effect that a project proponent will not be required to obtain a fresh environmental clearance at the time of renewal of the mining lease. This is misleading information and contrary to the decision of this Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2004)12 SCC 118)  as well as the decision rendered in Common Cause v. Union of India. (2017) 9 SCCAs mentioned above and as held in M.C. Mehta and Common Cause, the renewal of a lease after 27th January, 1994 would require an environmental clearance. Therefore, a mining lease holder having a valid environmental clearance obtained under EIA 1994 would still require a fresh environmental clearance for renewal of the mining lease inas the case may be. That being so there is no doubt at all that the 35 cases referred to in the third order of 20th March, 2015 who had an environmental clearance under EIA 1994 did require a fresh environmental clearance at the time of renewal of the mining lease. Since they did not have such a fresh environmental clearance the renewal of these 35 mining leases is clearly bad in law. Moreover, as held in M.C. Mehta and Common Cause the validity of an environmental clearance granted under EIA 1994 is only for five years. Therefore all environmental clearances 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 obtained environmental clearance under EIA 2006, since the validity of the environmental clearance is for the estimated project life or a maximum of 30 years in terms of paragraph 9 of EIA 2006 therefore no violation can be found on the ground of validity for the time period. To this limited extent, no interference is necessary at this stage in respect of these 37 mining leases. We make it clear, however, that this is subject to our conclusion that fresh mining leases were required to be granted by the State of Goa. Consequently, a mining lease holder obtaining a fresh mining lease would require a fresh environmental clearance in terms of EIA 2006.136. What is disturbing is that notwithstanding several and various violations, the MoEF granted environmental clearance to 72 mining leases. It seems to us that the MoEF acted without any application of mind in lifting the order placing all the environmental clearances in abeyance. Since the entire exercise carried out by the MoEF on 20th March, 2015 was mechanical, at the behest of the State of Goa, without due application of mind, without considering the multiple illegalities and irregularities committed by the mining lease holders or passing on the buck to the State of Goa and without considering relevant material such as the report of the EAC and the Expert Committee appointed by this Court, the exercise of lifting the abeyance order on 20th March, 2015 by the MoEF must be held void and as directed by the Court in Goa Foundation all the mining lease holders must obtain fresh environmental clearance for their mining project.137. We were informed by the learned Additional Solicitor General that show cause notices have now been issued to some mining lease holders demanding huge amountssome running into hundreds of crores of rupees towards value of ore extracted in excess of the environmental clearance. We were handed over some sample show cause notices (about 12) issued in September and October 2017 and the figures are quite staggering – the demand raised being about Rs. 1500 crores! Similarly, from the Summary of Mining Audit Report submitted by the auditors (and handed over to us by the learned Additional Solicitor General – for the period July 2016 to December 2016) the amount demanded (including interest) by the State of Goa from the mining lease holders through show cause notices issued is about Rs. 1500 crores! And without making any serious attempt to recover such huge amounts, the State of Goa has granted second renewal of mining leases and the MoEF played ball by lifting the abeyance order in respect of the environment clearances. The inferences that can be drawn are quitethere 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 be considered in the larger context of constitutionalism, the rule of law, environmental jurisprudence as well as the fundamental right of the people of Goa to have clean air and protection of the fragile ecology. Governance cannot and should not be carried out de hors the interests of the people and some uncomfortable decisions may be inevitable for balancing the equities.139. Finally, a controversy (wholly unnecessary in our view) was raised with regard to the period of validity of the environmental clearance granted under EIA 1994. Firstly, in the view that we have taken, the validity period of an environmental clearance under EIA 1994 is academic since a fresh environmental clearance was necessary at the time of renewal of a lease. Secondly, the period of validity of an environmental clearance was considered in M.C. Mehta and it was clearly held that it is valid for 5 years only.For no apparent reason and after EIA 2006, the issue of the validity of an environmental clearance granted under EIA 1994 was raked up and a notification was issued by the MoEF on 21st August, 2013 in which it was noted that the notification of 4th May, 1994 provided thatclearance granted shall be valid for a period of five years from commencement of the construction orAnother notification of 21st August, 2013 goes on to say that the intent of the Central Government has been and has always been that the validity of the environmental clearance is for five yearscommencement of the construction or operation and not that the environment clearance is only for five yearsthe commencement of construction or operation. Therefore, the Central Government clarified in the notification of 21st August, 2013 that the expressiona period of fivefor a periodrs for commencement of the construction or operation and not five years from commencement of the construction orWe do not see how this controversy really arises or its relevance to the present case, but we refer to it since submissions were made to explain the distinction betweenfive years andfive years in respect of the validity of an environmental clearance.145.It is perhaps sought to be contended that if environmental clearance is granted and mining operations commence within the five year period, then the environmental clearance under EIA 1994 is valid till the project or the mining lease period is over.We cannot see how such an inference can be drawn. Moreover, this submission overlooks the decisions in M.C. Mehta and Common Cause which accept the view that the validity of an environmental clearance granted under EIA 1994 is only five years as also the view that a valid environmental clearance is necessary for the renewal of a mining lease. No notification of the MoEF can overrule decisions of this Court. As far as EIA 2006 is concerned this submission is academic and not relevant since paragraph 9 of EIA 2006 provides that the environmental clearance would be valid for the estimated project life subject to a maximum of 30 years.146.Learned counsel for the mining lease holders also relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in S. N. Mohanty v. Union of India (2012 SCC OnLine Del 4000)to contend that notwithstanding a notification issued by MoEF on 4th April, 2011 it was not obligatory for a mining lease holder to obtain a fresh environmental clearance at the time of renewal of a lease, if the environmental clearance was subsisting.In that case, the petitioner had an environmental clearance obtained under EIA 2006 on 15th January, 2007 and the first renewal of the mining lease was due on 2nd April, 2012. In that context, it was submitted that it was not necessary for the petitioner to obtain environmental clearance for renewal of the mining lease. The Delhi High Court took the view that:if a person has a valid and subsisting EC [environmental clearance] at the point of time he seeks a renewal of the mining lease, he would still be required to obtain another EC prior to the grant of renewal by the respondents. That, in our view, is not the intent and purport of the Supreme Court directions in M.C.This question does not arise in the context of EIA 1994.147.One final submission before us was that these cases be referred to a Bench of 9 learned judges since the constitutional validity of the Goa, Daman & Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition & Declaration of Mining Leases) Act, 1987 was under challenge in some cases and the decision in those cases would perhaps render the present proceedings infructuous. In some of these pending cases, this Court had passed an order on 29th October, 2002 to await the decision of 9 learned judges in Propertyn v. State of Maharashtra. (2013) 7 SCC 522     dated 20th February,are not at all inclined to accept this request and mention it only to reject it. Correctness of the decision of the High Court in Lithoferro148. As far as the SLPs are concerned (SLP (C) No. 32138 of 2015 and SLP (C) Nos.of 2015) we set aside the judgment and order dated 13th August, 2014 of the High Court in view of our conclusion that the State of Goa was required to grant fresh licences in terms of the decision of this Court in Goa Foundation. The High Court proceeded on the erroneous basis that it could direct the State of Goa to grant a second renewal of the mining leases notwithstanding the direction in Goa49. In view of our discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions:1. As a result of the decision, declaration and directions of this Court in Goa Foundation, the State of Goa was obliged to grant fresh mining leases in accordance with law and not second renewals to the mining lease holders.2. The State of Goa was not under any constitutional obligation to grant fresh mining leases through the process of competitive bidding or auction.3. The second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa was unduly hasty, without taking all relevant material into consideration and ignoring available relevant material and therefore not inthe interests of mineral development.The decision was taken only to augment the revenues of the State which is outside the purview of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. The second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa is liable to be set aside and is quashed.4. The Ministry of Environment and Forest was obliged to grant fresh environmental clearances in respect of fresh grant of mining leases in accordance with law and the decision of this Court in Goa Foundation and not merely lift the abeyance order of 14th September, 2012.