Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-GOA:1022-DB
2026:BHC-GOA:1022-DB
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION WP NO. 44 OF 2024
The Goa Foundation,
through its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares,
age 76 years, having Regd. Office at G-8,
St. Britto’s Apts., Feira Alta, Mapusa,
Goa 403 507,
PAN No. AAAAG0249C
Income: Rs. 15-26,00,000 per annum
(approx), Registration No. 23/Goa/86,
Email id: goafoundation@gmail.com …Petitioner
~ versus ~
1. The State of Goa,
through its Chief Secretary, Secretariat,
Porvorim, Goa 403 521.
SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
Digitally signed by
SHEPHALI SANJAY
MORMARE
Date: 2026.05.08
11:31:32 +0530
2. The Directorate of Mines & Geology,
Ground Floor of Institute Menezes
Braganza, Panji, Goa – 403 001
3. The Ministry of Mines,
Through its Secretary, Shastri Bhawan,
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi, Delhi – 110 001
4. M/s. Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd,
Mining Division, at Chowgule House,
Mormugao Harbour, Mormugao,
Goa – 403 803.
5. The Goa Mineral Ore Exporters’
Association,
A society registered under Societies
Registration Act, having its office at P.O.
Box: 113, Vaglo Bldg.,
Page 1 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
Panji – Goa 403 001,
Through its Joint Secretary, Ms. Tereza
Maria Goretti Romana Rodrigues De
Souza, Wife of Cornelio De Souza,
Resident of House No. 425,
Aforamento, Near KV Colony, Reis
Magos, Verem, Bardez, North Goa
6. The Goa State Pollution Control Board,
Through its Member Secretary, Near
Pilerne Industrial Estate, Opp. Saligao
Seminary, Saligao, Bardez, Goa 403511
7. Vijay Ravalnath Gaonkar,
r/o H. No.: 252/1, Madala Wada,
Shirgao, Goa 403 505. …Respondents
A PPEARANCES
For the Petitioner Ms Norma Alvares, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Om D’Costa & Ms. Malisa
Simoes.
For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2-
State
Mr Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate
General, with Mr. Deep Shirodkar,
Additional Government Pleader.
For Respondent No. 3. Mr Somnath Karpe, with Mr. Anand
Shirodkar & Ms. Samiksha Vaigankar.
For Respondent No. 4. Mr S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Sailee Kenny, MR. Terence
Sequeira, Mr. Sarvesh Sawant, Ms.
Neha Shirgaonkar & Ms. P. Volvoikar
through VC.
For Respondent No. 5. Mr S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Neha Kholkar & Ms. Saicha
Desai.
For Respondent No. 6. Mr Joaquim Godinho.
For Respondent No. 7. Mr Rohit Bras De Sa.
Page 2 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ
TH
RESERVED ON : 4 FEBRUARY 2026.
TH
PRONOUNCED ON : 7 MAY 2026.
JUDGMENT ( Per Suman Shyam, J) :-
1. The Writ Petitioner is an Environmental Non Governmental
Organization (“NGO”) based in Goa and has been inter-alia
engaged in instituting legal proceedings before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India as well as this High Court, espousing the
cause of environment, wildlife, forests, pollution, mining laws,
inter-generational equity and planned development of the State of
Goa. By filing the present PIL Petition, the Petitioner has
approached this Court challenging the provision of Clause 2(2) of
Policy For Regulating Iron Ore Dump Handling in the State of Goa,
2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the Dump Policy of 2023”)
framed by the State of Goa for dealing with dump mines by
contending that Clause 2(2) of the Policy permits handing over
mining dumps to the ex-lessees who had illegally created them
outside the Mining Lease Area, without holding any auction, thus
acting in a manner which not only contrary to the provisions of
Page 3 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for
short “MMDR Act 1957) but also the jurisprudence on elimination
of natural resources flowing from the various Judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has, however, been clarified that the
challenge made to Clause 2(2) of the Dump Policy is confined to
only the dumps created outside the lease areas, located on
Government and private land and the inventoried dumps and,
therefore, the remaining clauses of the Policy of 2023 are not
under challenge. The core questions raised in this Writ Petition are
(i) whether the State of Goa can eliminate valuable minerals
contained in the mineral dumps without holding auction? and (ii)
whether dump mining can be permitted without granting mining
lease in respect of land where the dump is located? The Petitioner
th
has also challenged the “in-principle” approval dated 16 August
th
2024, consent to operate, dated 12 November 2024, and the
th
final approval dated 15 May 2025 granted in favour of
Respondent No. 4 as the first ex-lessee without holding auction or
granting any mining lease in the dump mine. Having regard to the
nature of controversy involved in this PIL, it would be apposite to
Page 4 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
briefly trace the historical background of this case, evident from
the material placed before this Court including the various
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as hereunder.
th
2. The State of Goa was under the Portuguese Rule until 19
December, 1961. Under the erstwhile Portuguese regime, mining
concessions had been granted in perpetuity to the concessionaires.
However, after the liberation of the State of Goa, it became a part
of the Union of India. As such, the MMDR, Act of 1957 became
applicable to the State of Goa. Consequently, the Controller of
th
Mining leases had issued a notice dated 10 March 1975 calling
upon all the existing lessees and sub-lessees, to file their returns
under Rule 5 of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules,
1956. The concessionaires in Goa also came within the purview of
th
the said Notification. As such, the Notification dated 10 March,
1975 was put to challenge before the Bombay High Court, Goa
th
Bench. By the Judgment dated 29 September 1983 rendered in
1
the case of Vassudeva Madeva Salgaocar vs Union of India the
Bombay High Court had passed a restraint order with regard to
1
(1985) 1 Bom CR 36.
Page 5 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
th
enforcement of the Notification dated 10 March 1975 in respect
of the concessionaires in Goa.
3. The Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition
and Declaration as mining Leases) Act, 1987 (for short “the
Abolition Act”) passed by the Parliament had received the assent
rd
of the President on 23 May 1987. As per Section 4 of the
Abolition Act, mining concessions were abolished with effect from
th
20 December 1961 by providing that mining concessions would
be deemed to be mining leases granted under MMDR Act which
would govern such leases. The “Abolition Act” was challenged
before the Bombay High Court, which had passed interim orders
permitting the lessees to carry on with the mining operations with
regard to the concessions for which renewal applications had been
filed under Rule 24-A of the Mining Concession Rules. Eventually,
although the High Court had upheld the validity of the “Abolition
Act” but it was clarified that the same would operate prospectively.
The decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by instituting Special Leave
Petition, wherein interim order was passed permitting the
Page 6 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
concessionaires to carry on with the mining operations and mining
business in the mining areas for which renewal applications had
been made, on the condition that the lessees would pay to the
Government, dead-rent from the commencement of the “Abolition
Act”.
th
4. On 16 October 2009, the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM),
Government of India, Ministry of Mines, had issued a Notification
revising the threshold value of minerals. In the said Notification,
thresh hold of Iron Ores i.e. (i) for Hematic Iron Ore had been
shown as 45% Fe(min) and (ii) Hematitic Iron Ore (for Goan
origin) as 35% Fe(Min).
5. In the meantime, reports were received by the Government
of India pertaining to large scale illegal mining of Iron Ore and
Manganese Ore in different States including the Sate of Goa.
Based on such information, the Government of India had
appointed one man Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the
Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 of Justice M. B. Shah, a Former
Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The terms of reference inter
alia , was to enter into and determine the extent of mining trade
Page 7 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
and transportation of Iron Ore and Manganese Ore carried out
illegally or without any authority of law and the losses incurred
therefrom and also to identify as far as possible, the persons, firms
and companies that were engaged in such illegal mining, trade
and transport of Iron Ore and Manganese Ore. Justice Shah
th
Inquiry Commission submitted two reports, one dated 15 March
th
2012 and another dated 25 April 2012, which were tabled in the
th
Parliament on 7 September 2012, along with the Action-Taken
Report. In the meantime, the Government of Goa had passed
th
order dated 10 September 2012 suspending all mining
th
operations within the Sate of Goa with effect from 11
September 2012. The Ministry of Environment and Forests
th
(“MoEF”) had also issued order dated 14 September 2012
issuing a direction to keep in abeyance, the environmental
clearances granted to the mines in the State of Goa.
6. In the wake of Justice Shah Commission report, the
Petitioner herein had instituted Writ Petition being Writ Petition
(C) No. 435 of 2012 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was
Page 8 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
registered as a Public Interest Litigation. The primary relief sought
in the PIL was for issuance of a direction to the Union of India and
the Sate of Goa to take steps for terminating the mines in respect
whereof, mining activities were being carried out in violation of
various statutes.
th
7. On 5 October 2012, the Supreme Court had issued notice
to the Respondents in Writ Petition No. 435 of 2012. By the said
order, a direction was also issued to the effect that until further
orders, mining operations in the leases in Goa, identified in the
report of Justice Shah Commission and transportation of Iron Ore
and Manganese Ore from those leases, whether lying on the Mine-
head and Stockyard, to remain suspended. In the said proceeding,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also directed that 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, will first be verified
and thereafter, the whole inventoried minerals will be sold by e-
auction and the sale proceeds (less taxes and royalty) will be
retained in separate fixed deposits(lease wise) by the State of Goa
Page 9 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
till the judgment on the legality of the leases from which the
minerals were extracted, is delivered by the Court. The entire
process of verification of the inventory, e-auction and deposit of
sale proceeds was required to be monitored by Monitoring
Committee constituted for the purpose.
th
8. By the order dated 11 November,2013 the Supreme Court
had constituted a Committee of Experts to conduct a macro EIA
study on what should be the ceiling of annual excavation of iron
ores from the State of Goa, considering its iron ore resources and
its carrying capacity, keeping in mind the principles of sustainable
development and intergenerational equity and all other relevant
factors. Expert Committee (EC) submitted its interim report on
th th
14 March 2014 and final report on 14 October 2014.
9. In the meantime, several mining lease holders had
approached the Bombay High Court seeking a declaration that the
report submitted by Justice Shah Commission as well as the orders
issued thereunder, suspending the mining operations and
environmental clearances, were illegal and, hence, liable to be
quashed. Those Writ Petitions, instituted before the High Court of
Page 10 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
Judicature at Bombay were, however, transferred to the Supreme
Court and heard along with Writ Petition No. 435 of 2012.
10. In the meantime, the Government of Goa had framed the
policy for regulating the mining dumps on Government and
private lands and related issues and notified the same in the
rd
Official Gazette on 3 September 2013 vide Notification No.
rd
16/7/2008-RD(Part-III). The Notification dated 3 September,
2013 had inter-alia mentioned that it was an one time policy for
dealing with issues of mining dumps and other related issues.
Paragraph B of the Policy of 2013, which lays down the scope of
the Policy, is reproduced as here-under:-
“B. Scope of the Policy .—
(1) The provisions of this policy shall be applicable to the land
used for dumping of mining rejects or like material and for all other
activities as provided under sub-section (2) of section 36 of Land
Revenue Code, 1968 on the land not covered under the land leased for
mining activities irrespective of present and proposed
classification/zoning.
(2) The policy provides for the levy of charges for
unauthorisedly using the Government and private land for non--
agricultural use.
(3) This policy also provides for the procedure to levy these
charges etc., and for restoration of land to its original use.”
Page 11 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
11. From a plain reading of the Policy of 2013 it is apparent
that the primary objective of the same was to address the issue of
loss of revenue due to un-authorized occupation of huge chunks of
Government and private land for non-agricultural purpose i.e.
mine dumping, in violation of Goa Land Revenue Code. Therefore,
the Policy had provided for levy of charges by prescribing the
conversion fees. As per the projections made in the Writ Petition,
the Dump Policy of 2013 had resulted in collection of a sum of Rs
426 crores by the Government of Goa as penalties for demand on
Land Revenue.
th
12. On 28 September 2013, the Goa Mineral Policy 2013,
was finalised by the Government of Goa after considering the
recommendations/ comments/ objections from various stake
holders. The Goa Mineral Policy of 2013 was published in the
Official Gazette under Notification No. PR. Secy (Mines) 01/2012-
Mines. Preamble to the policy takes note of the fact that the Goan
economy is heavily depended on Iron Ore Industry. However,
during the period from 2006-07 to 2011-12, due to huge spurt in
demand of low grade ore in international market followed by
Page 12 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
illegalities and irregularities under the previous regulatory regime,
the State had witnessed the peak of unregulated mining without
any concern for fragile ecology and environment of the State or
for the general well being of an average Goan, leading to reckless
exploitation without any concern for sustainability. Therefore, it
was observed that in order to promote sustainable extraction
regime to facilitate systematic, scientific and planned utilization of
mineral resources and to streamline mineral based development of
the State, keeping in view, the need to protect environment, health
and safety of the people in and around the mining areas, the Goa
Mineral Policy 2013 has been framed. From the above, it is clear
that the primary objectives of the policy was to develop and
exploit mineral resources in a scientific and systematic manner,
taking into account the interest of the State, its People and the
Environment. It would be significant to note here-in that the
Dump Policy of 2013 as well as the Goa Mineral Policy of 2013
were framed and notified by the Government of Goa during the
pendency of Writ Petition (c) No 435 of 2012 and the connected
matters before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, none of
Page 13 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
those two polices were challenged by the Petitioner in Writ
Petition (C) No.435 of 2012.
13. The verdict in Writ Petition (c) no 435 of 2012 and the
st
connected matters came to be delivered on 21 April 2014 in Goa
2
Foundation vs Union of India . (here-in-after referred to as Goa
Foundation-1 ).
14. In Goa Foundation-1 , the Supreme Court had inter-alia
declared that the deemed mining leases of Goa had expired on
nd
22 November 1987 and the maximum renewal period of 20
nd
years of the deemed mining leases had also expired on 22
November 2007. Consequently, it was held that mining by the
nd
lessees after 22 November 2007 was illegal. On the basis of
th
such observations, the order dated 10 September 2012 issued by
th
the Government of Goa and the order dated 14 September 2012
issued by the MoEF were held to be sustainable. It was also
observed that dumping of mines outside the lease area of the
mining leases was not permissible under the MMDR Act and the
2
(2014)6 SCC 590.
Page 14 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
Rules made thereunder. In so far as Dump Mining activities were
concerned, the Apex Court had observed that the EC had said
nothing about the mining dumps inside or outside the leased areas
as noted by Justice Shah Commission presumably because in the
th
order dated 11 November 2013, no direction was issued in that
regard. Therefore, the opinion of the EC was sought in this regard,
thereby directing it to submit its report within six months as to
how mining dumps in Goa are to be dealt with. On the basis of
such observations, the following directions were issued in Goa
Foundation-1 :-
“88.1. MoEF will issue the notification of eco-sensitive zones
around the national park and wildlife sanctuaries of Goa after
following the procedure discussed in this judgment within a
period of six months from today.
88.2. The State Government will initiate action against those
mining lessees who violate Rules 37 and 38 of the MC Rules.
88.3. The State Government will strictly enforce the Goa
(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation of
Minerals) Rules, 2013.
88.4. The State Government may grant mining leases of iron ore
and other ores in Goa in accordance with its policy decision and
in accordance with the MMDR Act and the Rules made
thereunder in consonance with the constitutional provisions.
88.5. Until the final report is submitted by the Expert
Committee, the State Government will, in the interests of
sustainable development and intergenerational equity, permit a
maximum annual excavation of 20 million MT from the mining
leases in the State of Goa other than from dumps.
88.6. The Goa Pollution Control Board will strictly monitor the
air and water pollution in the mining areas and exercise powers
Page 15 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
available to it under the 1974 Act and the 1981 Act including
the powers under Section 33-A of the 1974 Act and Section 31-A
of the 1981 Act and furnish all relevant data to the Expert
Committee.
88.7 The entire sale value of the e-auction of the inventoried
ores will be forthwith realised and out of the total sale value, the
Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Goa, under the
supervision of the Monitoring Committee will make the
following payments:
(a) Average cost of excavation of iron ores to the mining
lessees;
(b) 50% of the wages and dearness allowance to the
workers in the muster rolls of the mining leases who
have not been paid their wages during the period of
suspension of mining operations;
(c) 50% of the claim towards storage charges of
Marmagao Port Trust.
Out of the balance, 10% will be appropriated towards the Goan
Iron Ore Permanent Fund and the remaining amount will be
appropriated by the State Government as the owner of the ores.
88.8. The Monitoring Committee will submit its final report on
the utilisation and appropriation of the sale proceeds of the
inventoried ores in the manner directed in this judgment within
six months from today.
88.9. Henceforth, the mining lessees of iron ore will have to pay
10% of the sale price of the iron ore sold by them to the Goan
Iron Ore Permanent Fund.
88.10. The State Government will within six months from today
frame a comprehensive scheme with regard to the Goan Iron
Ore Permanent Fund in consultation with CEC for sustainable
development and intergenerational equity and submit the same
to this Court within six months from today; and
88.11 The Expert Committee will submit its report within six
months from today on how the mining dumps in the State of
Goa should be dealt with and will submit its final report within
twelve months from today on the cap to be put on the annual
excavation of iron ore in Goa.”
15. From the direction contained in paragraph 88.11, as noted
above, it is thus evident that save and except calling from the
Page 16 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
Expert Committee report within six months as to how to deal with
the mining dumps, the Supreme Court did not issue any other
effective order pertaining to the mining dumps in Goa Foundation-
1 .
16. In the meantime, several mining leases holders, who had
applied for renewal of mining leases and had already paid stamp
duty in terms of the Goa Mineral Policy of 2013 and whose
applications for renewal were pending since the year 2006, had
approached the Bombay High Court praying either for
consideration of their application for a second renewal or for the
grant of a mining lease on renewal. After considering the prayers
made by the Petitioners and upon taking note of the Goa Mineral
Policy of 2013 framed by the Goa Government, the Bombay High
Court, in the case of Lithoferro thorugh its Partner Kaustubh
3
Sawkr & Anr Vs. Director of Mines and Geology & Ors. and the
th
connected matters, had passed judgement and order dated 13
August,2014, directing the State Government to execute Lease
Deeds under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act in favour of the lease
3
2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3420.
Page 17 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
holders, who had already paid stamp duty pursuant to the order of
the Government, in accordance with the Goa Mineral Policy of
2013, subject, however, to the conditions laid down by the Apex
Court in Goa Foundation-1 . It was observed that the expression
“fresh leases” appearing in paragraph 67 of Goa Foundation-1
would mean and include grant of renewal of leases. In so far as
the lease holders who had not paid the stamp duty, the State of
Government was directed to decide their renewal applications
under Section 8(3), as expeditiously as possible, preferably within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order. The decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Lithoferro (Supra) was assailed by Goa Foundation i.e. the
Petitioner, before the Supreme Court by filing SLP (c) No.
32138/2015 and SLP (c) No. 32699-727 of 2015.
17. The State of Goa had framed the Goa Grant of Mining
th
Leases Policy of 2014 which was issued on 04 November 2014
th
and gazetted on 20 January 2015. The said Policy had apparently
rejected the idea of competitive bidding for the grant of mining
leases for the time being. Under the said Policy, 88 mining leases
Page 18 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
were renewed. These renewals were also under challenge. It was
the case of the Petitioners that in view of the Judgment rendered
in Goa Foundation-1 , the mining leases which had expired in the
year 2007 could not have been renewed under the garb of
granting fresh leases.
18. After taking note of the submissions made by the parties,
the Apex Court was of the view that the questions raised in the
proceeding were threefold- viz. (i) In view of the Judgment in Goa
Foundation-1 whether, only fresh leases were to be granted by the
State of Goa and not second renewal? (ii) For granting fresh leases
whether, the State of Goa should have introduced competitive
bidding and auction process; and (iii) Even assuming that the
decision to grant second renewal to the mining lease holders was
valid, even than, whether, the second renewals were in accordance
with law ? The question as to whether the decision of the Bombay
High Court in the case of Lithoferro (Supra) was in accordance
with law also fell for consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
th
in the said proceeding. By the judgment and order dated 7
February,2018 in Goa Foundation Versus Sesa Sterlite Limited and
Page 19 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
Others as well as the connected proceedings reported in (2018) 4
SCC 218 (here-in-after referred to as Goa Foundation-2 ) it was
held that in view of the categorical directions contained in Goa
Foundation-1 The State of Goa was required to consider the grant
of fresh mining leases. Therefore, the decision of the State of Goa
to grant second renewal of the mining leases was erroneous,
contrary to the decision of Goa Foundation-1 and, therefore, was
liable to be quashed.
19. Referring to the EAC report submitted in October 2013
pertaining to 137 mining Leases wherein it was found that many
of the mining Lease Holders had (i) no approval from the National
Board of Wildlife (ii) indulged in excess mining or dump mining
or (iii) intersected ground water level without any clearance of the
Central Ground Water Board (iv) had no forest clearance, the
Supreme Court had observed in Goa Foundation - 2 that although
the Mineral Policy and the EAC report were perhaps placed before
the Court in Goa Foundation - 1 , the same were not dealt with.
20. Dealing with the question as to whether the State of Goa
should have auctioned these mining leases, the Supreme Court
Page 20 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
took note of the observations made in an earlier decision in the
case of Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Ref. No. 1 of
4
2012, wherein the following observations have been made:-
“148. In our opinion, auction despite being a more preferable
method of alienation/allotment of natural resources, cannot be
held to be a constitutional requirement or limitation for
alienation of all natural resources and therefore, every method
other than auction cannot be struck down as ultra vires the
constitutional mandate.
149. Regard being had to the aforesaid precepts, we have opined
that auction as a mode cannot be conferred the status of a
constitutional principle. Alienation of natural resources is a policy
decision, and the means adopted for the same are thus, executive
prerogatives. However, when such a policy decision is not backed
by a social or welfare purpose, and precious and scarce natural
resources are alienated for commercial pursuits of profit
maximising private entrepreneurs, adoption of means other than
those that are competitive and maximise revenue may be
arbitrary and face the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Hence, rather than prescribing or proscribing a method, we
believe, a judicial scrutiny of methods of disposal of natural
resources should depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case, in consonance with the principles which we have culled out
above. Failing which, the Court, in exercise of power of judicial
review, shall term the executive action as arbitrary, unfair,
unreasonable and capricious due to its antimony with Article 14
of the Constitution.”
21. In the light of the decision in Natural Resources Allocation,
In Re, Special Ref (supra) the question as to whether, auction was
mandatory for disposal of natural resources was answered by the
Apex Court in paragraphs 80.1 to 80.5 of Goa Foundation-2 as
follows:-
4
(2012) 10 SCC 1.
Page 21 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
“80.1. 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;
80.2. Where the distribution, allocation, alienation or disposal of
a natural resource is to a private party for a commercial pursuit
of maximising profits, then an auction is a more preferable
method of such allotment;
80.3. 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;
80.4. A decision to not auction a natural resource and sacrifice
maximisation of revenues might be justifiable if the decision is
taken, inter alia, for the social good or the public good or the
common good;
80.5. 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.”
22. In Goa Foundation-2 although it was observed that in
principle the decision of the State of Goa not to auction the grant
of mining lease was flawed, yet, the Apex Court did not express
any final opinion on the issue nor quashed the decision of the
Government of Goa not to go for competitive bidding for grant of
fresh mining lease by observing that the same was not an issue
warranting adjudication in that proceeding. The conclusions
drawn in Goa Foundation-2 and directions issued therein are
reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:-
Page 22 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
“154. In view of our discussion, we arrive at the following
conclusions:
154.1. 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 leaseholders.
154.2. The State of Goa was not under any constitutional
obligation to grant fresh mining leases through the process of
competitive bidding or auction.
154.3. 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.
154.4. The Ministry of Environment and Forests 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 14-9-2012.
154.5. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Lithoferro v.
State of Goa (and batch) giving directions different from those
given by this Court in Goa Foundation¹ is set aside.
154.6. The mining leaseholders who have been granted the
second renewal in violation of the decision and directions of this
Court in Goa Foundation are given time to manage their affairs
and may continue their mining operations till 15-3-2018.
However, they are directed to stop all mining operations with
effect from 16-3-2018 until fresh mining leases (not fresh
renewals or other renewals) are granted and fresh environmental
clearances are granted.
154.7. The State of Goa should take all necessary steps to grant
fresh mining leases in accordance with the provisions of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests should also take all
necessary steps to grant fresh environmental clearances to those
who are successful in obtaining fresh mining leases. The exercise
should be completed by the State of Goa and the Ministry of
Environment and Forests as early as reasonably practicable.
Page 23 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
154.8. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to ensure
that the Special Investigating Team and the Team of Chartered
Accountants constituted pursuant to the Goa Grant of Mining
Leases Policy, 2014 give their report at the earliest and the State
of Goa should implement the reports at the earliest, unless there
are very good reasons for rejecting them.
154.9. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to expedite
recovery of the amounts said to be due from the mining
leaseholders pursuant to the show-cause notices issued to them
and pursuant to other reports available with the State of Goa
including the report of Special Investigating Team and the Team
of Chartered Accountants.”
23. After the decision in case of Goa Foundation-2 as noted
above, the State of Government came up with the “Policy for
regulating Iron Ore dump handling in the State of Goa”, which
th
was published in the Official Gazette on 14 September 2023.
The aforesaid policy, here-in-after referred to as “the Policy of
2023”, was apparently aimed at addressing the ground realities
arising pursuant to the Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court
in Goa Foundation-1, more particularly, the declaration that
dumping of minerals outside the lease area itself was illegal.
Clause 2(2) of the Policy of 2023 is under challenge in this Writ
Petition.
24. While acknowledging the fact that in view of the declaration
of the Supreme Court, the erstwhile lease holders would not have
any right to handle the dumps out side the lease area except in
Page 24 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
accordance with the Policy decision of the State, it was provided
that the Policy of 2023 was in continuation and modification of
earlier policy for regulating the mining dumps over Government
and Private lands and the related issues.
25. Clause 1.2 of the of the Policy of 2023 defines “dump”,
which reads as follows:
“Dump constitutes the excavated material accumulated in
the form of heap or pile on the surface of the land or stocked
on the demineralized area temporarily or permanently
during mining, and the material stocked or piled can be re-
handled as and when required not only for recovery of Fe
mineral and associated minerals but also to fulfil the norms
of mine closure plan as specified by the regulatory bodies.
Therefore, dumps include not only the piles of stocks of
exploitable Fe mineral, but it also includes wastes and
tailings.”
26. As per Clause 1.3 a Dump site would mean and include
earmarked areas either within the mining lease or outside the
lease area, utilized for storing ore, overburden lumps or fines,
rejects, sub-grade material, tailings or earth/soil generated during
mining operation or extraction of ROM.
27. Clause 2 of the Policy deals with dumps situated outside the
lease area on private property.
Page 25 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
28. Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the Policy of 2023 would be relevant
in this case and, therefore, are being reproduced hereinbelow for
ready reference:-
“2. Dumps situated outside the lease area on private
property.— 2.1. All dumps which have not been approved or
shown in the mining plan sanctioned by the IBM shall be
deemed to be completely illegal and neither the lease holder
nor any other person shall have any right to the same. Such
dumps shall be compulsorily auctioned by the Government.
2.2. With respect to the inventoried dumps situated on
private properties falling outside the lease area, but depicted
on the mining plan, only if the Conversion fees in terms of the
Policy for regulating the mining dumps on Government and
private lands, and related issues and the fine contemplated
under sub-section 1A of section 33 of the Goa Land Revenue
Code, have been paid; the erstwhile lease holder shall be
permitted to remove the dump within a period of five years
from the date of publication of the present policy or such
further period as may be notified, subject to payment of
royalty and compliance of all statutory requirements.”
29. From a conjoint reading of Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the Policy
of 2023, what transpires is that in respect of the mining dumps
which did not have the approval as shown in the mining plan,
such dumps would stand forfeited under the policy and would be
compulsorily auctioned by the Government. However, in respect of
the inventoried dumps situated on private properties, which are
falling outside lease area but depicted in the mining plan, the
right of the erstwhile lease holders to remove the same within a
Page 26 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
period of five years form the date of publication of the Policy on
payment of royalty has been recognized. Clause 2(1) of the Policy,
in our considered opinion, proceeds on the premise that in case of
dumps situated outside the mining area but covered in the mining
plan instead of conducting auction of such dumps, the
Government had permitted the lessees to remove the same within
the specified time period after payment of conversion fee and
royalty and as per the other statutory requirements.
30. Ms. Norma Alvares, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner has straneously argued that after the decision of the
Apex Court in Goa Foundation-1, whereby it was observed that all
dumping outside the lease area are illegal and without any
auhtorization under the law, the erstwhile leases cannot claim
ownership over such dumps. She submits that even if such dumps
were created under the mining plans by the erstwhile lease
holders, even then, in view of the observations made in the Goa
Foundation -1 , all such dumps along with the respective leases
had lapsed. Under such circumstances, the erstwhile lease holders
cannot claim any right over the dumps nor can the same be
Page 27 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
handed over to such ex-lease holders without putting the same to
public auction. According to Ms. Norma Alvares, learned Senior
Counsel, for the Petitioner, after the decision in Goa Foundation-1
dumps containing Iron Ore ought to have been confiscated by the
State of Goa and the same should have been sold in public auction
since no other means of alienation of natural resources would be
permissible under the law.
31. By referring to and relying upon the decision of the
5
Supreme Court Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Vs State of Bihar & Ors.
Ms Alvares has further argued that surface deposits also constitute
mining and therefore, the dump mines would be liable to be
disposed of by the State only through auction and by no other
means. Notwithstanding the same, the impugned clause in the
Policy 2023, which permits handing over the dumps to the
erstwhile leases merely on payment of conversion fee and royalty
of 22% is not only in conflict with the mandate flowing from the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Goa Foundation-1 , but the same
would also result in huge losses to the public exchequer. To
substantiate her above arguments, Ms Alvares has projected that
5
(1990) 4 SCC 557.
Page 28 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
the procedure adopted by the State of Goa for alienation of dumps
outside the Lease area, without holding e-auction would result in
alienation of about 261.70 million tons of dumps, the revenue for
which, would be in the vicinity of Rs. 10,000 crores.
32. In so far as the Expert Committee Report, which indicates
that it would be the prerogative of the State Government to frame
policy for handling of dumps outside the lease area, Ms. Alvares
submits that such recommendations of the Expert Committee
would not have the force of law nor can the same perpetuate
illegality. Therefore, the Respondent-State cannot seek refuge
under the Expert Committee Report, so as to justify the impugned
policy. On such count, Ms. Alvares has submitted that Clause 2(2)
of the Policy of 2023 be struck-down by this Court and all
consequential actions taken thereunder, including issuance of in-
principle approval, consent to operate, and final approval dated
th
15 May 2025 in favour of the ex-Lessee i.e. the Respondent No.
4 be set aside by this Court.
33. Responding to the above arguments, Mr Devidas Pangam,
learned Advocate General for the State of Goa has submitted that
Page 29 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
dumps cannot be treated on equal footing with the Iron Ore
extracted from the mines as per the Mining Plan. Since there is no
direction for confiscation of the dumps in Goa Foundation-1 and
considering the recommendations made by the Expert Committee
observing that appropriations /ownership of the dumps outside
the lease area would be within the domain of the State
Government, hence, the policy of 2023 have been framed by
taking note of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this
Court.
34. Mr. Pangam has further argued that since there is no
declaration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as regards ownership or
expropriation of the dumps located either within or outside the
lease area and since the Expert Committee has left the matter at
the discretion of the State, which position has also been affirmed
th
by the order dated 13 December 2022 passed by the Supreme
Court in IA No. 6524/2020 arising out of WP(C)-435/2012,
hence, the prayers made in the Writ Petition are not sustainable in
Page 30 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
the eyes of law. The Writ Petition is, therefore, liable to be
dismissed.
35. Mr S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent
No. 4, while supporting the above arguments made by and on
behalf of the State Government of Goa, has further contended that
the dumps were created under the mining plan by the erstwhile
lessees and treated as waste materials since those did not have
any marketable value at the relevant point of time. Value, if any,
attached to the dumps was only subsequent to reduction of the
threshold value of the Ores from 55% to 45% which took place in
the year 2009 i.e. much after the creation of the dumps.
Contending that the policy of 2023 is nothing but continuation of
2013 policy, which also did not provide for confiscation or public
auction for the dumps and in view of the fact that the Petitioner
did not challenge the 2013 policy, hence, the prayer made in the
PIL Petition would not be maintainable under the law.
36. It is the further contention of the learned senior counsel
appearing for the Respondent No. 4 that after the direction of the
th
Supreme Court issued on 13 December 2022 permitting the
Page 31 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
State of Goa to resume dump mining activities in accordance with
Expert Committee’s report, no order contrary to the directions
contained in said order, can either be prayed for or passed by this
Court. Under such circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No. 4 has also prayed for dismissal
of the PIL Petition.
37. Mr S.S.Kantak, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Respondent No 5 has also prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition
by arguing that the prayers made there-in are not maintainable
under the law.
38. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, Mr. Jaoquim
Godinha, has adopted the submissions made by the other
Respondents and has also prayed for dismissal of the PIL Petition.
39. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and
have also gone through the material available on record. At the
very outset, it deserves to be noted herein that, in the present
Petition, we are not concerned with granting of mining leases but
with disposal of dump mining created outside the Mining Lease
Page 32 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
Area. From the definition provided in Clause 1(2) of the Policy of
2023, it is evident that Dumps are created due to accumulation of
material stocked or piled temporarily in demineralized area which
can be re-handled not only for recovery of Fe ore and other
associated minerals but also for mine closure and the same
includes wastes and tailings.
40. As per the statements made in paragraph 18 of the Writ
Petition, there are two categories of mining dumps which are
distinguishable from one another. “Waste dumps” are huge dumps
comprising of topsoil, over burden, non-mineral waste, mud, rocks
etc. which are required to back fill the mining pits after mine
closure. “Minirel dumps” would consist of stack of ore or sub-
grade ore which were kept aside during mining operation. After
the revision of the threshold value of Iron Ore by the IBM, from
55% to 45 % these sub-grade ore immediately became sale
able/marketable. Therefore, in view of the decision in Goa
Foundation-1 these dumps containing saleable/ marketable ore
had vested in the State and therefore, those were liable to be
confiscated and disposed of through public auction.
Page 33 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
41. What would be significant to note here-in that in Goa
Foundation-1 , although an issue regarding ownership and
expropriation of mining dumps were raised, no opinion in respect
thereof was rendered by the Apex Court. Instead, as has been
noted above, opinion of the EC was called for as to the manner in
which such dumps are to be handled. The EC had submitted its
th
report on 14 October, 2014. The EC report was available during
the pendency of Goa Foundation-2. However, it appears that the
issue regarding public auction of mining dumps was not raised by
the Petitioner in Goa Foundation-2. The said aspect of the matter,
in our opinion, would assume great significance in the facts of this
case simply on account of the fact that in Goa Foundation-2
instituted by the Petitioner, the Apex Court was examining the
validity of the Goa Grant of Mining Lease Policy, 2014 permitting
grant of mining lease without resorting to the process of
competitive bidding. However, the Policy of 2014 had not been
interfered with by the Court in Goa Foundation -2.
42. Not only that, the Policy of 2013 was notified by the
rd
Government of Goa on 3 September, 2013 i.e. before the
Page 34 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
decision in Goa Foundation-1 . The Policy 2013 also did not
envisage confiscation of mining dumps outside the Mining Lease
Area or for that matter, holding of e-auction or competitive
bidding for disposal of mining dumps. At that stage also the
th
Notification of the IBM issued on 16 October 2009 revising the
threshold value of iron ore was also available in public domain. In
other words, all such grounds urged in the present Petition
pertaining to dump mining, were available to the Petitioner during
the pendency of Goa Foundation-1 . However, no relief, in the light
of the policy of 2013, was prayed for by the Petitioner.
Notwithstanding the same, the Policy of 2023, which is a
continuation of the Policy of 2013, has been assailed in this Writ
Petition.
43. The recommendations of the Expert Committee pertaining
to dump mining is contained in paragraph 6 of the report dated
th
14 October 2014, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready
reference:-
“6.0 Recommendations
1. The unstable dumps that are contributing to the pollution of
surrounding ecosystems and those located on hill slopes, forest areas
Page 35 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
and other ecologically sensitive non-lease areas should be handled on
priority.
2. Those dumps which are stabilized and covered with the vegetation and
located in lease area, and not contributing to the degradation of
surrounding ecosystems may be permitted for dump mining only after
the existing ore as above is exhausted in a particular lease and subject
to all clearances including environmental and forest clearances and on
an approved mining plan. (The advantage of mining of these dumps
will be: (i) that the lateritic plateaus will be available for bring back to
their original ecosystem through restoration; (ii) yield minerals of
commercial values and generate income and promoted economic
growth, (iii) the wastes can be used in back filling demineralized pits,
(iv) prevent pollution from un-stabilized dumps, and (v) some of the
shallow voids can be used for storage of water and also for recharging
ground water. Consequently, the advantages of dump mining outweigh
the pollution caused which can be mitigated by appropriate measures.)
3. The dumps in the non-lease area is in the domain of the State Govt.
and and the State Govt. may evolve an appropriate policy keeping in
view the various existing judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and Hon'ble High Courts, the various related legislations,
recommendations made in this report, taking into account the
environment, ecology, socio-economics of the area, mineral
conservation, and other related factors.
4. By and large, dumps which are situated within the mining lease area
are being managed and dealt with in accordance with approved
mining plans. However, further conditions may be imposed for all such
dumps which contain sub-grade ores, either partially or fully, and are
situated outside the mining lease area to minimise environmental
Impacts.
5. The dumps of tallings are the source of pollution of surrounding
ecosystems. Therefore, these dumps should be grassed or covered with
mulch till the material is disposed of.
6. The GMP, 2013 policy as envisaged under 6.3.6 should be followed
before re-handling dumps in forest areas.
7. Additional ore beneficiation/palletisation plants with modern as well
as relevant technologies could set up for re-handling of the dumps.
8. The Committee recommends setting up a Centre for Ecological
Restoration and Mineral Development, with the financial resource from
cess imposed on the saleable minerals or CAMPA funds.
9. Assessment of the extent of saleable Fe ore and potential saleable Fe
ore (after beneficiation), and other associated minerals (e.g. industrial
minerals) may be undertaken from both stabilized and un-stabilized
Page 36 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
dumps. This assessment should be carried out as per the MMDR, GMP
2013, IBM rules and other relevant rules/regulations.
10. The mine quarries could be used for storage of water and recharge of
ground water, pisiculture development, source of water for Irrigation
etc. In such a case, mine closure plan has to be suitably amended.
11. Dump mining should be undertaken after relevant approvals Including
environmental clearance, forest clearance if required.
12. The committee recommends that the classification of dumps proposed
in the report may be followed in the management of dumps.\
13. The GMP, 2013 may be amended, as required, to take Into account the
recommendations made by the Expert Committee.”
44. In view of the recommendations made by the Expert
Committee, the Government of Goa had filed Interlocutory
Application bearing No 6524/2020 in Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No.
435 of 2012 seeking permission to carry out dump mining. Based
on such application made by the State of Goa, the Hon’ble
th
Supreme Court had passed order dated 13 December, 2022
allowing the State Government to carry out dump activities. The
th
order dated 13 December 2022 passed in IA No. 6524/2020 in
WP(C)-435/2012 would be of great significance in this case and
therefore, the same is being reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Vide order dated 14.08.2017, this Court had stated
that the Expert Committee's Report will be duly considered.
This application has been filed by the State of Goa
praying for 'permitting the applicant to carry out dump
mining recommended by the Expert Committee's Report
dated as 12.04.2015.
Page 37 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
There is no opposition to the said application.
We are, therefore, inclined to allow the State
Government to carry out the dump mining activities in
accordance with the Expert Committee's Report and
specifically paragraph 6 that is containing the
recommendation of the Expert Committee.
The application (I.A. No. 6524 of 2020) is disposed of
in the above terms.”
th
45. After the order dated 13 December 2022 was passed, on
th
14 September 2023, the Dump Policy of 2023 was framed by the
Government of Goa by taking into consideration the
recommendations made by the Expert Committee.
th
46. From a plain reading of the order dated 13 December,
2022 we find that the methodology for carrying out dump mining
activities by the State Government of Goa was directed to be in
accordance with the Expert Committee’s report. Save and except
the recommendations in paragraph 6 of the Expert Committee, no
th
other condition has been added in the order dated 13 December
2022 as a criteria for carrying out the dump mining activities.
Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it
would not be permissible for this Court to add words to the order
th
dated 13 December 2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
Page 38 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
as such a recourse would clearly amount to tinkering with and/or
th
modifying the order dated 13 December 2022 of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
47. If the Petitioner had any objection to the recommendations
made by the Expert Committee in the light of Goa Foundation-1
and Goa Foundation-2 and was of the view that the dump created
outside the Mining Lease Area ought to be confiscated and put to
public auction, then in that event, there was nothing preventing
the Petitioner from raising such a plea before the Hon’ble Supreme
th
Court when the order dated 13 December, 2022 was passed. The
said order was evidently passed after hearing the Petitioner. But
the Petitioner did not raise any objection to the Expert Committee
recommendation for handling the mining dumps. The order dated
th
13 December, 2022 has attained finality in the eyes of law. No
th
application for review/modification of the order dated 13
December 2022 has been filed by the Petitioner before the
Supreme Court.
48. As per Article 141 of the Constitution, this Court is duty
bound to implement the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Page 39 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
letter and spirit. Law is also well settled that a Court order must
be read and understood strictly in the context of the order. In
Goan Real Estate & Construction Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of
6
India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Ors. it has
been observed that an order of the Court must be construed
having due regard to the text and context in which the same was
passed. The Judgment and Order of the Court cannot be read as a
statute.
49. In the decision of the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench, in
7
Vedanta Limited & Anr. Vs. Director of Mines and Geology & Ors.,
a co-ordinate Bench, while dealing with the prayer of the
Petitioner herein to extend the mining lease period from 1987 to
2037 under Section 8(A)(3) of the Act of 1957 on the ground that
such extension was mandated under the statute and, therefore,
was not affected by the decision of the Supreme Court in Goa
Foundation-2, has observed that the decision of the Supreme
Court would be binding and the High Court cannot direct the
State to act contrary to the clear directions of the Supreme Court.
6
(2010) 5 SCC 388.
7
Writ Petition No. 1005 of 2019.
Page 40 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
In that case it was observed that the Supreme Court has clearly
directed that only fresh mining leases can be granted and not
renewal and extension of lease. After taking note of the facts and
circumstances of the case, directions issued in Goa Foundation-2 ,
the Division Bench had observed that, until the decision in Goa
Foundation-2 is reviewed, the prayer made by the Petitioner
therein to amend and grant extension of lease cannot be
considered, as the same would be contrary to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation-2.
th
50. On 16 August 2024, the Directorate of Mines, granted “in-
principle” approval to the Respondent No. 4 for dump handling in
accordance with Clause 2(2) of the Dump Policy, 2023.Goa State
Pollution Control Board (“GSPCB”) had also granted consent to
th
operate for dump handling on 12 November 2024. In the month
of January 2025, amendments were carried out to Clause 2(2) of
the Dump Policy 2023 thereby expanding the scope of the dumps
th
on other lease areas as well. Accordingly, on 6 March 2025, the
cabinet approved levy of 22% premium for dump handling under
Page 41 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
th
the amended policy. Thereafter, on 4 April 2025, the SEIAA had
granted environment clearance to the Respondent No. 4 for
th
carrying out dump handling. On 7 May 2025, second
amendment to Clause 2(2) was carried out, thus, introducing
th
premium mechanism for dump removal. On 7 May 2025, the
Directorate of Mines had also issued an order implementing 22%
premium on dump mines. Based on the above, final approval
th
dated 15 May 2025 was issued in favour of the Respondent No.
4 for handiling 1.35 MMT dump at Sirigao village. The State of
Goa had thereafter, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India seeking permission to dispose of 1.94 MMT of “non-
inventoriesd” ore.
51. In the above context, it would be pertinent to mention
herein that from a reading of the judgments rendered in Goa
Foundation-1 and Goa Foundation -2 , it appears that the mining
dumps were created by concessionaires and/or the erstwhile lease
holders while operating the mining leases/ concessions which had
evidently lapsed in the year 2007. Therefore, the Petitioner may
Page 42 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
have some justification in contending that just like the Iron Ore
lying in the mines, requiring execution of fresh mining leases
through e-auction, the same process must also be followed even in
case of dumps. However, such contention of the Petitioner cannot
be countenanced for two reasons. Firstly, while there is a
categorical declaration in Goa Foundation -1 pertaining to the
ownership of the mines after the lease holders’ right had ceased to
operate, there is no such declaration in respect of the mining the
dumps. The said position has also remained unaltered in Goa
Foundation-2 .
52. It is no doubt true that in Mineral Area Development
8
Authority Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, relied upon by the
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, it has been observed
that natural resources are held by the State as trustee of the public
and, therefore, the State must deal with the same in a the manner
consistent in a nature of such trust and in accordance with the
regulatory regime. The Petitioner’s counsel has also argued that in
the case of Meerut Development Authority Vs. Association of
8
(2024) 10 SCC 1.
Page 43 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
9
Management & Ors., it has been observed that the wealth of the
State must not go to the hands of the individuals at a discount.
10
53. In the case of Sachidanand Pandey Vs. State of W.B, it has
been observed that the State owned property should not be dealt
with at the absolute discretion of the Executives. The above
observation was quoted in the case of Centre for Public Interest
11
Litigation & Ors. Vs. Union of India. The Petitioner has heavily
relied on such decisions. There can be no quarrel with the
propositions of law flowing from the aforesaid decisions. However,
in our opinion, none of those decisions had laid down the absolute
proposition of law that in every case, the State must resort to
public auction for disposing of natural resources.
54. In the case of Natural Resources Allocation (Supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that auction is just
one of the several price discovery mechanism and, therefore, it
cannot be held to be the only constitutionally recognized method
for alienation of natural resources although it can be a mode of
9
(2009) 6 SCC 171.
10
(1987) 2 SCC 295.
11
(2012) 3 SCC 1.
Page 44 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
valid disposal of natural resources. Such observation in Natural
Resources Allocation has been quoted with approval in Goa
Foundation-2 , wherein some of the issues raised in the present
Petition were directly and substantially in issue.
55. In the present case, as has been noted above, the dumps,
whether in the Government land or private land, outside the lease
area were the products of mining activities, which were carried
out under the approved mining plans. When these dumps were
generated, those were treated as waste, thus, signifying that no
value would be attached to such dump mines. Their value
increased only after the threshold limit was revised in the year
2009. The State Government of Goa earlier has realised or is in
the prrocess of realizing conversion fee from the ex-lessees for
using the land for dumping and also recovered royalty on such
dumps. Therefore, it cannot be said that as per Clause 2(2) of
Policy of 2023, the dumps are being alienated without following a
transparent process or by causing loss to the exchequer. The facts
and figures projected by the Petitioners are also totally insufficient
for this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the all the dumps
Page 45 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
contain deposit of Iron Ores/ Manganese Ores, valued in excess of
the royalty recovered by the State.
56. Law is well settled that although a policy decision of the
State is not immune to judicial review of the constitutional Court,
yet, the Court would not sit in appeal over the wisdom or efficacy
of the policy. In policy matters, the Court must respect the
separation of power and exercise restraint unless it is shown that
the policy itself infringes on the fundamental rights of the citizens
or is arbitrary or unreasonable or the same is framed in bad faith,
with the mala fide intent and ulterior motive to extend undue
favour to a specific entity, by ignoring the public interest at large.
While examining the validity of a policy decision of the State in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Court must play a supervisory role but not the role of an
Appellate Authority and act as a sentinel on the qui vive so as to
ensure that the executive does not cross the boundary of fairness,
reasonableness and the decisions are compliant with the statutory
norms as well as fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of
the Constitution of India.
Page 46 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
57. Policy decision of the State, particularly, in economic matter,
are based on various inputs, data and ground realities which are
within the special knowledge of the executives. The economic
policies are shaped by such inputs available to the Government.
The Courts do not have the necessary expertise to examine the
merit of such policies so as to arrive at a conclusion, as to whether,
a better policy could have been framed.
58. In the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, reported in
(1994) 6 SCC 651, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is
not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or a
decision taken in fullfilment of that policy is fair or not. The Court
should only be concerned with the manner in which those
decisions have been taken.
12
59. In the case of M P Oil Extraction Vs. State of M.P. , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Executive Authority
of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a
policy. Unless the policy is absolutely capricious and not being
informed by any reason whatsoever, permitting the conclusion
12
(1997) 7 SCC 592.
Page 47 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
that the same is arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the
executive thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India
or the same is found to be in conflict with the statutory provisions,
the Court cannot and should not overstep its limits and tinker with
the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State.
60. In the case of BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs Union
13
of India & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the
following observations in paragraph 98, which reads thus:-
“98. In the case of a policy decision on economic
matters, the courts should be very circumspect in
conducting any enquiry or investigation and must be
most reluctant to impugn the judgment of the experts
who may have arrived at a conclusion unless the court is
satisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself.”
61. Coming to the facts of the present case, as has been noted
above, it is not a case where the mining dumps have been
permitted to be removed, as per Clause 2(2) of the policy of 2023,
without following any transparent procedure. Clause 2(2) of the
Policy of 2023 cannot be struck down by the Court merely on the
ground that a better policy could have been framed by the State.
13
(2002) 2 SCC 333.
Page 48 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
62. Insofar as the mining dumps, generated under fresh mining
leases issued in terms of the provisions of the MMDR Act is
concerned, Clause 2(2) of the policy of 2023 itself makes it clear
that such dump mine must be in conformity of the mining plan
approved by the Competent Authority.
63. From the above, it is apparent that the mining dumps so
created are nothing but the dumps generated due to the mining
activities carried out under an approved mining plans. Therefore,
it must be presumed that the lease holder has already paid royalty
with regard to the Iron Ore, if any, contained in the dumps. Under
such circumstances, the plea of disposing of the dumps, through a
fresh process of auction, in our considered opinion, does not hold
to reason. Rather, we are of the view that the mechanism
prescribed under Clause 2(2) of the Policy of 2023 is not only fair
and transparent but the same also adequately addresses the
economic concerns of the State.
64. It is no doubt correct that Section 10(B) of the MMDR Act
of 1957 makes it mandatory for grant of mining lease in respect
notified minerals thorough auction, which includes Iron Ore and
Page 49 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
Manganese Ore. However, in the present case, as noted above, we
are not concerned with the grant of fresh mining lease, which
issue was conclusively dealt with in Goa Foundation-1 and Goa
Foundation-2 and appropriate directions issued therein. It is no
doubt correct that in view of the decision in Goa Foundation-1 , it
is now settled that dump mining activities outside the Mining Area
would be illegal. But the same, in our view, would not
automatically lead to the conclusion that all mining dumps
created outside the mining area, are liable to be confiscated and
sold in public auction as no such direction has been issued in Goa
Foundation-1 or Goa Fundation-2 . In view of the definition of
mining dumps as noted above, we are also not inclined to accept
the Petitioner’s contention that the mining dumps are to be treated
at par with the mining leases for the purpose of Section 10(B) of
the MMDR Act, 1957.
65. In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Vs State of Bihar &
Ors. (Supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner, the Appellant therein was a Government company,
carrying out coal mining operation in village Sudamdih in the
Page 50 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
State of Bihar. There was a coal washery adjacent to the
Appellants coal mine. After the coal was extracted from the mines,
the same used to be crushed into pieces of different sizes for the
purpose of grading and, thereafter, brought to the washery for
washing and cleaning the same so as to reduce the ash percentage
and for use by metallurgical consumers. In the aforesaid process,
small coal particles escaped from the washery in the form of slurry
along with water and got deposited in the pond constructed for
the storage by the Appellant. But when the pond became full, the
slurry used to overflow into river Damodar and the coal got
deposited in the river-bed. These coal particles were collected and
formed into briquettes which were sold in the market for energy
and fuel purpose. Considering the high commercial value of the
briquettes, the same had extensive used by steel plants and
thermal power stations. The State of Bihar had accordingly
granted lease in favour of the Respondent therein for collecting
such coal particles from Damodar river bed. The case of the
Appellant was that the collection of coal took place in a plot No.
370 belonging to it which formed part of the river bed of
Damodar. As such, it had property rights to collect and obtain the
Page 51 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
slurry deposited in the river bed. It is in such factual backdrop it
was held that the Appellant was the owner of the Plot No. 370 of
village Sudamdih, and, therefore, the State Government did not
have authority under the law to make any arrangement or to settle
any right with Respondents for collecting slurry deposits from Plot
No. 370. It was accordingly, held that the slurry which escaped
from the Appellant's washery is mineral and its regulation is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of Central Government. Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the
view that since the disposal of the mining dumps is in terms of a
notified policy of the State Government, the decision in the case of
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra) would not
have any application in the facts of the present case.
66. The question of conserving the natural resources in the
State of Goa, bearing in mind the issues of sustainable
development and intergenerational equity is a very serious issue
having great public importance. We, therefore, appreciate the
efforts on the part of the Petitioner-Foundation in highlighting
such issues of public importance which had led to significant
Page 52 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::
PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc
judgments and directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Goa Foundation-1 and Goa Foundation-2. However, for the
reasons state herein above, we are of the view that, the reliefs
prayed in the PIL, cannot be granted in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
67. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
68. No order as to cost.
(AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
Page 53 of 53
th
7 May 2026
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2026 12:49:21 :::