Summary
The Supreme Court quashed Goa’s second renewals of 88 mining leases as contrary to its earlier Goa Foundation decision and unsupported by proper consideration of mineral development. Fresh leases and fresh environmental clearances were required. The High Court’s contrary directions and the mechanical lifting of environmental-clearance abeyance could not stand. In this February 2018 order, mining under the invalid renewals could continue only until 15 March 2018 and had to stop from 16 March pending fresh grants. Investigations and recovery action were to be expedited.
Issues
- Whether the earlier Goa Foundation judgment permitted second renewals instead of fresh mining leases.
- Whether the renewals and restoration of environmental clearances were lawful, and whether auction was constitutionally mandatory.
Provisions considered
- Section 8(3), as applicable to the impugned renewals, Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957Renewal required a reasoned determination in the interests of mineral development. The hasty renewals ignored relevant material and were not justified merely by State revenue needs. (¶¶ 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 124, 149)
Held
- The earlier Goa Foundation judgment required fresh leases, not second renewals of expired leases. Although renewal is generally regarded as a fresh grant, a direction to grant fresh leases did not authorize renewal here. The High Court’s contrary reading and directions in Lithoferro were erroneous. (¶¶ 36, 41, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 148, 149)
- The second renewals were unduly hasty and disregarded the State’s own policy, outstanding investigations, serious violations, environmental damage and the holistic requirements of mineral development. Reliance on approval or deemed approval of mining plans alone was insufficient. Some leases were renewed even before receipt of the Bureau of Mines report or expiry of the statutory waiting period. (¶¶ 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 115, 116, 117, 120, 124, 149)
- Auction was not constitutionally mandatory for allocating every natural resource. Non-auction allocation remains subject to limited review under Articles 14 and 39(b); commercial gain without a public or social purpose warrants scrutiny. Although the Court criticised Goa’s decision, it expressly declined finally to adjudicate arbitrariness of the non-auction policy or quash it on that ground. (¶¶ 59, 69, 74, 75, 76, 93, 94, 98, 99, 103, 124, 149)
- Fresh mining leases required fresh environmental clearances. The Ministry’s mechanical lifting of abeyance ignored relevant reports and violations and was void. EIA 1994 clearances did not authorize the impugned renewals; the absence of a time-validity objection to the 37 EIA 2006 clearances did not dispense with fresh clearance for fresh leases. (¶¶ 125, 128, 131, 132, 134, 135, 136, 139, 145, 149)
- The invalidly renewed leaseholders were allowed to manage their affairs and mine until 15 March 2018, but had to stop operations from 16 March 2018 until fresh leases and fresh environmental clearances were granted. The authorities were to complete lawful fresh grants as early as reasonably practicable. These were the directions made in this 2018 decision. (¶ 149)
- Goa was directed to secure and implement the investigation and chartered-accountant reports promptly, unless very good reasons justified rejection, and expedite recovery of amounts said to be due under show-cause notices and available reports. The judgment did not itself finally quantify each lessee’s recovery liability. (¶¶ 137, 149, 150)
Result
Writ petitions and SLPs disposed of. Second renewals and the High Court’s Lithoferro directions set aside; fresh leases and environmental clearances required. Mining ordered to stop from 16 March 2018 pending fresh grants; investigations and recovery steps to be expedited.