Case: Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

2. Prior to 19.12.1961 when Goa was a Portuguese territory, its Portuguese Government had granted mining concessions in perpetuity to concessionaires. On 19.12.1961, Goa was liberated and became part of the Indian Union and on 01.10.1963, the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short `the MMDR Act) was made applicable to the State of Goa. On 10.03.1975, the Controller of Mining Leases issued a notification calling upon every lessee andto file returns under Rule 5 of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956 and sent copies of the notification to the concessionaires in Goa. Aggrieved, the concessionaires moved the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench, and by judgment dated 29.09.1983, in Vassudeva Madeva Salgaocar vs. Union of India [1985(1) Bom. CR 36], the Bombay High Court restrained the Union of India from treating the concessions as mining leases and from enforcing the notification against the concessionaires.3. Parliament thereafter passed the Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition and Declaration as Mining Leases) Act, 1987 (for short `the Abolition Act) which received the assent of the President on 23.05.1987. Section 4 of the Abolition Act abolished the mining concessions and declared that with effect from the 20th day of December, 1961, every mining concession will be deemed to be a mining lease granted under the MMDR Act and that the provisions of the MMDR Act will apply to such mining lease. Section 5 of the Abolition Act further provided that the concession holder shall be deemed to have become a holder of the mining lease under the MMDR Act in relation to the mines in which the concession relates and the period of such lease was to extend upto six months from the date when the Abolition Act received Presidents assent, i.e. upto 22.11.1987. On 14.10.1987,(8) and (9) were inserted in Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short `the MC Rules) which deal with renewal of mining leases in Goa, Daman and Diu. The Abolition Act was challenged by the lessees before the Bombay High Court in a writ petition. The High Court passed an interim order permitting the lessees to carry on mining operations and the mining business in the concessions for which renewal applications had been filed under Rule 24A of the MC Rules. Subsequently, the High Court held in its judgment dated 20.06.1997 that the Abolition Act was valid but Section 22(i)(a) of the Abolition Act would operate prospectively and not retrospectively. The concessionaires filed special leave petition against the judgment dated 20.06.1997 before this Court. On 02.03.1998, this Court passed an interim order permitting the concessionaires to carry on mining operations and mining business in the mining areas for which renewal applications have been made on the condition that the lessee pays to the Government dead rent from the date of commencement of the Abolition Act. Subsequently, this Court granted leave in the special leave petition and continued the aforesaid interim order.Pursuant to this order of the State Government, on 11.09.2012 and 12.09.2012 the District Magistrates of the State of Goa banned transportation of iron ore in their respective districts and the Director of Mines and Geology ordered for verification of mineral ore which was already extracted. On 13.9.2012, the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Goa issued Show Cause Notices to 40 mining leases. On 14.9.2012, the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Union of India also directed that all Environmental Clearances granted to mines in the State of Goa be kept in abeyance.6. On the basis of findings in the report of the Justice Shah Commission on illegal mining in the State of Goa, the Goa Foundation has filed Writ Petition (C) 435 of 2012 as Public Interest Litigation praying for directions to the Union of India and the State of Goa to take steps for termination of the mining leases of lessees involved in mining in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Goa Foundation has prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to prosecute all those who have committed offences under the different laws and are involved in the pilferage of State revenue through illegal mining activities in the State of Goa including the public servants who have aided and abetted the offences. The Goa Foundation has also sought for appointment of an independent authority with full powers to take control, supervise and regulate mining operations in the State of Goa and to ensure the implementation of the laws. Besides, the aforesaid main reliefs, the Goa Foundation has also prayed for some incidental and consequential reliefs. On 5.10.2012, this Court issued notice in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 435 of 2012 to the respondents and directed the Central Empowered Committee (for short "CEC") to submit its report on the writ petition and also directed that till further orders, all mining operations in the leases identified in the report of the Justice Shah Commission and transportation of iron ore and manganese ore from those leases, whether lying at theor stockyards, shall remain suspended, as recommended in the report of the Justice Shah Commission.7. Different mining lessees of the State of Goa and the Goa Mining Association also filed Writ Petitions in the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench for a declaration that the report of the Shah Commission is illegal and for quashing the findings in the report of the Justice Shah Commission and also for quashing the order dated 10.9.2012 of the Government of Goa suspending mining operations in the State of Goa and the order dated 14.9.2012 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, directing that the Environmental Clearances granted to the mines in the State of Goa be kept in abeyance. These Writ Petitions have been transferred to this Court for hearing along with the hearing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 435 of 2012 filed by the Goa Foundation.8. The Writ Petitions and the Transferred Cases were heard during September, October and November, 2013. On 11th November, 2013, an order was passed by this Court directing that the inventory of the excavated mineral ores lying in different mines/stockyards/jetties/ports in the State of Goa made by the Department of Mines and Geology of the Government of Goa be verified and thereafter the whole of the inventorised mineral ores be sold byand the sale proceeds (less taxes and royalty) be retained in separate fixed depositsby the State of Goa till the Court delivers the judgment in these matters on the legality of the leases from which the mineral ores wereCourt has also directed that this entire process of verification of the inventory,and deposit of sale proceeds be monitored by a Monitoring Committee appointed by the Court. By the said order dated 11.11.2013, this Court also constituted an Expert Committee to conduct a macro EIA Study on what should be the ceiling of annual excavation of iron ore from the State of Goa considering its iron ore resources and its carrying capacity, keeping in mind the principles of sustainable development andintergenerational equity andall other relevant factors. On 11.11.2013 the case was also reserved for judgment.

Reasoning: 11. We find that Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 provides that if a person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry, the Commission shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence in his defence and Section 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 provides that every such person will have a right toand the right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Commission. As the State Government of Goa has taken a stand before us that no action will be taken against the mining lessees only on the basis of the findings in the report of the Justice Shah Commission without making its own assessment of facts and without first giving the mining lessees the opportunity of hearing and the opportunity to produce evidence in their defence, we are not inclined to quash the report of the Justice Shah Commission on the ground that the provisions of Sections 8B and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. At the same time, we cannot also direct prosecution of the mining lessees on the basis of the findings in the report of the Justice Shah Commission, if they have not been given the opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence in their defence and not allowed the right toand the right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Commission as provided in Sections 8B and 8C respectively of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. We will, however, examine the legal and environmental issues raised in the report of the Justice Shah Commission and on the basis of our findings on these issues consider granting the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition filed by Goa Foundation and the reliefs prayed for in the writ petitions filed by the mining lessees, which have been transferred to thisthe finding in the Justice Shah Commission report that the applications for renewal were not disposed of within the stipulated time and the leases are in contravention of the MC Rules is, thus, not correct. This opinion of the Justice Shah Commission, as we have noticed, was based on(4) and (5) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, which were applicable generally to an application for renewal of mining leases, stood excluded to the extent specific provisions have been subsequently made by theles (8) and (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules in respect of the deemed leases in Goa.The MC Rules have been made under Section 13 of the MMDR Act by the Central Government and obviously could not have been made in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.(6) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules provides that if an application for the renewal of a mining lease made within the time referred to in(1) is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of the lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes order thereon. Thiscannot apply to a renewal under(3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act because the renewal under this provision cannot be made without express orders of the State Government recording reasons for renewal in the interest of mineral development. In other words, so long as there is a right of renewal in the lessee which in the case of a mining lease is for a maximum period of twenty years, the provision regarding deemed extension of a lease can operate, but if the right of renewal of a mining lease is dependent upon the State Government forming an opinion that in the interest of mineral development it is necessary to do so and the State Government recording reasons therefor, a provision regarding deemed extension till orders are passed by the State Government on the application of renewal cannot apply. We are, therefore, of the opinion that(6) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules will apply to a case of first renewal under(2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act other than a case covered under(9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, but will not apply to renewal under(3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act. In our view, the deemed mining leases of the lessees in Goa expired on 22.11.1987 under(1) of Section 5 of the Abolition Act and the maximum of 20 years renewal period of the deemed mining leases in Goa as provided in(2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act read with(8) and (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules expired oncontention of learned counsel appearing for the lessees loses sight of the fact that most of these lands are located in forest areas whereactivity, such as mining, is prohibited under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 without the prior permission of the Central Government. Moreover, the notification issued under(3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 requiring prior environmental clearance covers the activity of mining.(3) of Rule 5 empowers the Central Government to impose prohibition or restrictions on the location of an industry or the carrying on of processes and operations in an area for the purpose of protecting the environment. Inasmuch as the activity of dumping mineral wastes will pollute the environment, it will come within the meaning of activity of mining included in the Schedule to the notification issued under(3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. Thus, for dumping of mining waste on a private land, a prior clearance of the Central Government under the notification issued under(3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 would be necessary. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the lessees that they can dump mining waste outside the leased area.We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and we find that presently no mining operations are being carried on inside any National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, and the State of Goa has taken a stand before us that it will not permit any mining operations inside any National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary. Hence, the only question that we have to decide is whether mining could have been permitted or could be permitted within a certain distance from the boundaries of the National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary in the State of Goa.Goa.43. When, however, we read the order dated 4.12.2006 of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.460 of 2004 (Goa Foundation v. Union of India), we find that the Court has not prohibited any mining activity within 10 kilometer distance from the boundaries of the National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.12.2006 is quotedMinistry is directed to give a final opportunity to all States/Union Territories to respond to its letter dated 27th May, 2005. The State of Goa also is permitted to given appropriate proposal in addition to what is said to have already been sent to the Central Government. The Communication sent to the States/Union Territories shall make it clear that if the proposals are not sent even now within a period of four weeks of receipt of the communication from the Ministry, this Court may have to consider passing orders for implementation of the decision that was taken on 21st January, 2002, namely, notification of the areas within 10 km. of the boundaries of the sanctuaries and national parks asareas with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and environment and having regard to the precautionary principles. If the State/Union Territories now fail to respond, they would do so at their own risk and peril.The MoEF would also refer to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, under sections 5 (b) and 5 (c) (ii) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the cases where environment clearance has already been granted where activities are within 10 km.will be clear from the order dated 4.12.2006 of this Court that this Court has not passed any orders for implementation of the decision taken on 21st January, 2002 to notify areas within 10 kms. of the boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries as eco sensitive areas with a view to conserve the forest, wildlife and environment. By the order dated 04.12.2006 of this Court, however, the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, was directed to give a final opportunity to all States/Union Territories to respond to the proposal and also to refer to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife the cases in which environment clearance has already been granted in respect of activities within the 10 kms. zone from the boundaries of the wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. There is, therefore, no direction, interim or final, of this Court prohibiting mining activities within 10 kms. of the boundaries of National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries.Sanctuaries.46. In fact, we find that the process of issuing a notification under Rule 5 of the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986 prohibiting mining activities inzones around the National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries in the State of Goa has now been initiated. The Government of Goa vide letter dated 02.05.2013 submitted the following six proposals for declaration of ecosensitive zones around protected areas in the State of Goa to the Ministry: (i) Cotigao Wildlife Sanctuaries; (ii) Netravali Wildlife Sanctuary; (iii) Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary and Bhagwan Mahaveer National Park; (iv) Madei Wildlife Sanctuary; (v) Bondla Wildlife Sanctuary; and (vi) Dr. Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary.We entirely agree with the CEC report that in the absence of proper checks, verifications and controls, there is bound to be illegal mining, storage and transportation of minerals, but we find that after the CEC Report, the Goa (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation of Minerals) Rules, 2013 have been framed by the State Government under Section 23(c) of the MMDR Act.After considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we took the view that a Committee of Experts must conduct a macro EIA study and propose ceiling of the annual excavation of iron ore from the State of Goa, considering its iron ore resources and its carrying capacity and keeping in mind the principles of sustainable development andintergenerational equity andall other relevant factors.We find that the State Government has also engaged the services of NEERI for macro level EIA study for Clusters of Iron Ore Mines in the State of Goa, but NEERI in its preliminary report has not recommended as to what should be the total quantum of annual production of iron ore in Goa in future. We also find that Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India had entrusted the Indian School of Mines (ISM), Dhanbad to carry out a regional environment impact assessment study of mining in Goa region and ISM, Dhanbad has submitted its report proposing a cap of 24.995 MT per annum on the basis of the carrying capacity of the existing infrastructure oftherefore, find that the Expert Committee as well as ISM, Dhanbad, after considering the available data and after considering the adverse impact on environment and the limited carrying capacity of the transport system in Goa, are of the opinion that a cap between 20 to 27.5 million tons per annum should be fixed for excavation of iron ore in the State of Goa. In its recommendations, however, the Expert Committee has suggested that till the scientific study by the Expert Committee is completed in about 12 months or so, and more of data including impacts on different ecological environmental parameters is available through monitoring of the impacts by different agencies including the Goa State Pollution Control Board, 20 million tons per annum should be fixed as the annual excavation of iron ore indo not agree with Mr. Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel for the Goa State Pollution Control Board, that sincere efforts were made by the Pollution Control Board to monitor the water quality and air quality in the mining areas. Rather, it appears that the Goa State Pollution Control Board, though conferred with immense statutory powers, has failed to discharge its statutory functions and duties. We hope that in future the Goa State Pollution Control Board exercises strict vigil and monitors the water quality and air quality in accordance with the provisions of the two Acts and if necessary, exercises the powers conferred on it to close down mining operation of a lessee, if the lessee does not conform to the air emission and water discharge standards while carrying on mining operations and does not take other preventive measures as directed by the State Pollution Control Board.We find from the report of the Expert Committee that the State of Goa heavily depends on iron ore mining for revenue as well as employment. The legislative policy behind the MMDR Act made by Parliament is mineral development through mining. The State Government of Goa has also adopted the executive policy to encourage mining of minerals in Goa. Moreover, as Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for 33 Panchayats, has submitted about 1.5 lakh people are directly employed in mining in Goa and large number of persons have taken bank loans and purchased trucks for transportation of iron ore. Hence, people who earn their livelihood through work in connection with mining will be seriously affected if mining is totally banned to protect the environment. We cannot, therefore, prohibit mining altogether, but if mining has to continue, the lessees who benefit the most from mining, must contribute from their sale proceeds to the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund for sustainable mining. Accordingly, in exercise of our powers under Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct that henceforth 10% of the sale proceeds of iron ore excavated in the State of Goa and sold by the lessees must be appropriated towards the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund for the purpose of sustainable development andintergenerational equity andthe State of Goa in consultation with the CEC will frame a comprehensive scheme in this regard and submit the same to this Court within six months.We are of the considered opinion that it is for the State Government to decide as a matter of policy in what manner the leases of these mineral resources would be granted, but this decision has to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder and in consonance with the constitutional provisions and the decision taken by the State of Goa to grant a mining lease in a particular manner or to a particular party can be examined by way of judicial review by the Court.As we have held that the deemed mining leases of the lessees in Goa expired on 22.11.1987 and the maximum period (20 years) of renewal of the deemed mining leases in Goa has also expired on 22.11.2007, mining by the lessees in Goa after 22.11.2007 was illegal. Hence, the order dated 10.09.2012 of the Government of Goa suspending mining operations in the State of Goa and the order dated 14.09.2012 of the MoEF, Government of India, suspending the environmental clearances granted to the mines in the State of Goa, which have been impugned in the writ petitions in the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench (transferred to this Court and registered as transferred cases) cannot be quashed by this Court. The order dated 10.09.2012 of the Government of Goa and the order dated 14.09.2012 of the MoEF will have to continue till decisions are taken by the State Government to grant fresh leases and decisions are taken by the MoEF to grant fresh environmental clearances for mining projects.