Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-GOA:1031-DB
Suzana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.64 OF 2017
1. Shantilal Khushaldas & Brothers
Pvt. Ltd., A Company
incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
registered office at Salgaocar
Bhavan, Altinho, Panaji, Goa-
403001 through its Director Mr.
Mukesh M. Saglani with Office
at the above address.
2. Mukesh M. Saglani, Director of
the Petitioner No.1, Indian
National, major of age, with
Office at Salgaocar Bhavan,
Altinho, Panaji, Goa.
Versus
1. State of Goa, through its Chief
Secretary, having office at
Secretariate, Porvorim, Goa.
2. The Director, Directorate of
Mines and Geology, having
office at Menezes Braganza
Building, Panaji, Goa.
…..Petitioners.
Respondents.
Mr. Subodh S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, Ms.
Neha Kholkar, Ms. Maria Carmita D'Costa Mashelkar, Ms. Sonam Dessai
and Mr. Raj Chodankar, Advocates for the Petitioners.
Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr. Prashil Arolkar,
Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2.
Page of
ϭ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR JJ.
th
Reserved on : 07 MAY 2026
th
Pronounced on: 08 MAY 2026
JUDGMENT: Per Valmiki Menezes, J.
1.
The Petitioner has impugned an Order dated 05.11.2013 passed by
the Respondent No.2 Director of Mines & Geology (DMG), to the extent
that it pertains to TC No.44/1951 (the Petitioner’s Mining Lease), and has
further challenged a Revisional Order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the
Respondent No.3, the Revisionary Authority, Ministry of Mines; in
addition, the Petitioner has sought the following directions to
Respondents 1 and 2.
(i) Respondent No.1 and 2 to withdraw Order dated 05.11.2013 and
Order dated 08.11.2013 to the extent it pertains to TC
No.44/1951;
(ii)
Respondent 1 and 2 to grant a first renewal order in favour of the
Petitioners in respect of Mining Lease, as was directed by this
Court.
Page of
Ϯ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
(iii)
Direct Respondent 1 and 2 not to take any coercive action against
the Petitioners on the impugned Orders, during pendency of the
Petition.
The Petitioners have also sought writ of mandamus to direct
Respondent 1 and 2 to withdraw Order dated 05.11.2013, and for a
declaration that the Petitioners’ mining lease stands extended till
31.03.2020 in terms of Section 8A of the Mines & Minerals (Development
& Regulations) Act, 1951.
2.
It is the Petitioner’s case that Petitioner No.1 Company was granted
a mining concession by the Portuguese Government, more particularly in
respect of the Mine bearing TC No.44/1951 Joleracho Dongor situated at
Maina/Cavorem, in Quepem Taluka, Goa. According to the Petitioners,
the mining concession was treated as a mining lease pursuant to the
coming into force of the Goa, Daman & Diu Mining Concession (Abolition
and Declaration) As Mining Leases Act, 1987 (Abolition Act). According
to the Petitioner, by virtue of Section 4 of the Abolition Act, the
Petitioners’ mining concession was deemed to be a mining lease granted
under the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951
(MMDR Act). According to the Petitioners, under Section 5 of the
Page of
ϯ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
Abolition Act, the Petitioners deemed mining lease, stood extended by six
months after it expired on 22.11.1987. According to the Petitioner, it filed
its first application for renewal of the mining lease in terms of Rule 24-A
of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MCR) on 21.08.1988 on which no
decision was taken by the Government for a period of six months.
According to the provisions of Rule 24-A of the Concession Rules, the
application is deemed to be refused on expiration of the period of six
months, on which the Petitioner challenged the deemed refusal on
14.08.1989, in a Revision before the Central Government. The Revisional
Authority set aside the deemed refusal on 21.08.1989, remanding the
matter back to the Government of Goa for a decision on merits.
On remand, the Government once again rejected the application for
renewal of the mining lease on 25.04.1990 against which a second revision
application was filed, which was allowed by the Revisional Authority on
01.06.1993, remanding the matter back to the Government of Goa for a
decision on merits. Thereafter, the Government yet again rejected the
application for renewal of the lease on 26.02.2002, which order came to
be upheld by the Revisional Authority on 11.03.2003.
Page of
ϰ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
3. It is the Petitioner’s case that within two years of the rejection of the
Revision filed by the Petitioner by the Central Government, the Petitioner
filed a representation before the Government of Goa on 07.12.2005
seeking reconsideration of its earlier decision to reject extension of the
mining lease, on the ground that it had paid all dues and obtained a
Clearance Certificate, the lack of production of which was the only reason
why the earlier application for renewal had been rejected. According to
the Petitioner, on a direction of this Court passed on 16.12.2005 in Writ
Petition No.478 of 2005, the State Government was required to adjudicate
upon the representation; the State Government, on 11.07.2007 decided to
grant a renewal of the lease subject to the Petitioners obtaining
Environment Clearances(EC) and clearance from the Forest Department.
The Petitioner then obtained an Environment Clearance from the
Ministry of Environment and Forest on 02.03.2009, pursuant to which it
worked the mine in the year 2010 and 2011 and paid royalty to the State
for that period. The Supreme Court, by interim Order of 05.10.2012
passed in Writ Petition (Civil) 435 of 2012 directed the Central
Empowerment Committee (CEC) to submit its report on mining
operations in leases identified in the Report of the Justice Shah
Commission, in the State of Goa, and further directed that till further
Page of
ϱ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
orders, all mining operations in leases identified in the said Report, as also
transportation of iron and manganese ore from the leases, whether lying
at the mine head or stockyard, shall remain suspended.
4.
According to the Petitioner, as a consequence of this Order, and
since the lease of the Petitioner’s mine was one of those listed in the
Justice Shah Commission Report, they were constrained to stop
operations in the mine. On 18.10.2013, the DMG issued a Public Notice
calling upon all lessees mentioned in the Notice, including that of the
Petitioner, wherein it stated that the mining lease was deemed to have
lapsed on the ground that it was not worked. On 05.11.2013, the DMG
declared various leases, including that of the Petitioner to have lapsed as
abolished with effect from 22.11.2007.
The Petitioner challenged Order dated 05.11.2013 before the
Revisional Authority (Respondent No.3) who dismissed the Petitioner’s
Revision on 25.03.2015. It is these three Orders dated 05.11.2013,
08.11.2013, and the Revisional Order dated 25.03.2015 that are
challenged in this Petition on various grounds and on the submissions
advanced on behalf of the Petitioner which are referred to below:
Page of
ϲ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
5. SUBMISSIONS:
On behalf of the Petitioner, Learned Senior Advocate Shri Subodh
Kantak has advanced the following submissions:
It was submitted that the impugned Revisional Order is patently
illegal as it proceeds on the premise that the Supreme Court, in its
Judgment passed in Goa Foundation v/s Union of India and others
(2014) 6 SCC 590 (GF-1) had held that the mining leases lapsed in the
year 2007 which finding was perverse. It was submitted that on a reading
of the Judgement, no such abolition or lapsing of lease was held to have
occurred, and on the contrary, the Supreme Court had categorically held
that mining, post 2007, could not be done on the ground that it was done
on the basis of a deemed renewal, since such renewal could be granted
only if the State had recorded that it was in the interest of the mineral
development. It is the submission of the Petitioner, that it is in fact
seeking the implementation of paragraph 87.1 of the Judgment of GF-I,
since the Petitioner’s lease has in fact been granted for the first period
commencing 22.11.1987 and the second renewal was applied for, without
prejudice to the Petitioner’s contention, that its case was not covered by
the GF-I.
Page of
ϳ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
It was then contended that the Petitioner’s first lease was not a
deemed extended lease covered under paragraph 87.1 of GF-I since the
application for first extension had been rejected and after two rounds of
challenge in Revision, had been specifically granted by the Government of
Goa on 11.07.2007. According to the Learned Counsel, therefore, the
Petitioner’s lease is alive and has been specifically granted by an Order
which is covered under Rule 24-A of the MCR. It is further submitted that
the case of the Petitioner falls under Section 8 of the MMDR, as the
Petitioner had applied for renewal for the first time within one year from
the date of expiry of the lease under Rule 24-A and was actually granted
in terms of the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 8 thereof and would
operate for a period of twenty years. It was contended that the Petitioner
had, on the basis of grant of the first renewal, applied for the second
renewal on 09.10.2007, prior to the passing of the interim order in GF-1,
on 22.11.2007. On these submissions, the Petitioner claims that the
Judgment of GF-1 makes an exception to those leases which were granted
in accordance with Section 8 of the MMDR and only covers leases which
were deemed granted under Rule 24-A of the MCR. Reliance was placed
Page of
ϴ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
by Learned Counsel for the Petitoner on
Indian Petrochemicals Corpn . Ltd
1
v/s Shramik Sena .
6 . On behalf of the State, the Learned Advocate General, Shri. Devidas
Pangam has advanced the following submissions:
a. The Learned Advocate General has taken us through the judgement
of the Supreme Court in GF-I and submits that in paragraphs 82
and 87 to 89 thereof, the Supreme Court has declared and directed
that all mining operations pursuant to leases that expired on
22.11.1987 or that were deemed to have expired on 22.11.2007
were deemed to be illegal, and consequently upheld Orders dated
10.09.2012 of the Government of Goa suspended all mining
activities in the State of Goa, and has further upheld Order dated
14.09.2012 of the Ministry of Environment & Forest by which it
directed all environmental clearances granted to the mines in the
State of Goa be kept in abeyance. It was then submitted that the
Petitioner’s mining lease, whether specifically renewed or deemed
1
(2001) 7 SCC 469
Page of
ϵ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
renewed would be covered by the GF-1 Judgment, and no
exception would be made insofar as leases which were renewed
prior to the GF-1 Judgment. It was then submitted that the
purported order of renewal of lease dated 11.08.2007 was not an
actual grant of lease but was only an in principle grant.
It was further contended that the Petitioner had chosen to file
an intervention application before the Supreme Court in the GF-1
Petition on 16.09.2013, and that intervention application, having
not been specifically decided is deemed to have been dismissed
when the GF-1 Judgment was pronounced. The Learned Advocate
General submits that having participated in the proceedings of the
GF-1 Petition, not only by filing intervention but by advancing
arguments in the Petition, through a Counsel, and yet not raising
the issues raised in this Petition, that the Petitioner’s case claiming
to have a live lease and not a deemed lease, was not covered by the
Judgment, is now hit by the principles of constructive res judicata.
It was then contended that even at the time the second Judgment
in Goa Foundation v/s Sesa Sterlite Limited and Others
reported in (2018) 4 SCC 218 (GF-II) was passed on
07.02.2018, the Petitioner’s still did not approach the Supreme
Page of
ϭϬ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
Court either with a Review Application contending the case put
before this Court in the present Petition nor did it file any separate
proceedings to challenge the Orders dated 10.09.2012 of the
Government suspending mining operations nor the Order of the
MoEF of 14.09.2012 keeping the ECs in abeyance, even though
they specifically cover the mine of the Petitioner. Reliance was
placed on the following Judgments:
2
(i)
Devilal Modi v/s State tax Officer, Ratlam and Others ;
(ii) Shiv Chander More and Others v/s Lieutenant Governor and
Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 744
(iii)
Vedanta Limited & Anr v/s Director of Mines and Geology & Ors,
in Writ Petition No.1005 of 2019, vide order dated 25.11.2019
passed by High Court of Bombay at Goa
(iv) Lithoferro v/s Director of Mines and Geology & Ors, reported in
2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3420
(v)
Vendanta Ltd v/s The Goa Foundation and Ors reported in (2021)
7 SCC 206
7. In rejoinder, the Petitioners have placed on record the copy of the
intervention application which bears IA No.78/2013 filed in WP (Civil)
2
(i) 1964 SCC OnlIne SC 17
Page of
ϭϭ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
No.435 of 2012 (GF-I Petition) to contend that the application for
intervention filed by the Petitioner was with respect to a different mining
lease bearing TC No.28/1952, in relation to which, on grounds similar to
the ones raised herein, a separate Writ Petition No.83/2017 has been filed
and is pending disposal. According to the Petitioner therefore, the mere
filing of an intervention application in respect of a different mining lease,
which was never decided, would not preclude the Petitioner from
challenging the impugned Orders before this Court. It was further
contended that there was no cause for the Petitioner to either approach
the Supreme Court with regard to the present mining lease, since this was
a case where the lease in fact granted, and not a case of a deemed lease
covered by the GF-I Judgment.
The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that
the principles of constructive res judicata could never apply to the present
case since the decision of the Supreme Court in GF-I was rendered on
specific facts and proceeded on the basis that it was dealing with cases of
only deemed renewals of a lease under Rule 24-A of the MCR, as on
22.11.1987 and cases of extension of leases after twenty years from
22.11.2007. Further, it was contended that the principle of res judicata
Page of
ϭϮ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
would not apply since the Petitioner was never a party to the GF-I Petition
but was only heard as an intervenor, and that too with regard to a totally
different mining lease. In any case, the Petitioners, is a case of rejection of
extension of a lease at the initial stage and grant of the same in the year
2007.
8. We have considered the record of the Petition, submissions and case
law submitted by the parties. From the submissions advanced before us,
the main issue to be decided is whether the Petitioner’s case is covered by
the declaration issued by the Supreme Court in the GF-I Judgment which
was further clarified in the GF-II Judgment; and further, whether the
conduct of the Petitioner, considering the specific facts of its case would
justify grant of the reliefs sought in the Petition.
9. To answer the aforesaid issue, we would first refer to certain
passages of the various Judgments, which the Petitioner contends,
declarations of the Supreme Court therein, would not deny the
Petitioner’s case for grant of the reliefs.
In GF-I (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraphs 2 and 4 thereof
records the historical facts which led to the applicability of the MMDR Act,
Page of
ϭϯ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
the MCR to mining leases in Goa post its liberation from Portuguese rule
and the effect of upholding the constitutional validity of the Abolition Act.
The Supreme Court also refers to its Order of 05.10.2012, giving interim
directions in the Petition, reproduced in the footnote therein which are
quoted below:
“4 WP (C) No. 435 of 2012, order dated 5-10-2012 (SC), wherein it was
directed:
"1. Issue notice …….
2. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) is directed to submit its
report on this writ petition, which is essentially based on the report of
Justice M.B. Shah (a former Judge of this Court), Chairman of the
Commission of Enquiry for illegal mining of iron ore and manganese.
The Secretaries of the Ministries of Mines and Forest and
Environment, Union of India, and the Chief Secretary of the State of
Goa are directed to furnish all information that CEC may require for
making its report for the Court in light of the Shah Commission's
Report.
3. A preliminary report from CEC should reach this Court within four
weeks from today. Put up on receipt of the report from CEC. Till
further orders, all mining operations in the leases identified in the
Shah Commission's Report and transportation of iron ore and
manganese ore from those leases, whether lying at the mine-head or
stockyards, shall remain suspended, as recommended in the
Commission's Report.”
Page of
ϭϰ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
10. Reference to the interim order and its effect and implementation is
then made in paragraphs 8 to 10 which are reproduced below:
“8. On 5-10-2012 this Court issued notice in Goa Foundation v.
Union of India 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. 611 mining
operations in the leases Identified in the report of the Justice Shah
Commission and transportation of iron ore and stockyards, shall
remain suspended, as recommended in the report of the manganese
ore from those leases, whether lying at the mine head or Justice Shah
Commission.
9. Different mining lessees of the State of Goa and the Goa Mining
for a declaration that the report of the Shah Commission is illegal
and for Association also filed writ petitions in the Bombay High
Court, Goa Bench 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, 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 Goa Foundation.
10. The writ petitions and the transferred cases were heard during
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
inventoried mineral ores be sold by e-auction and the sale proceeds
(less taxes and royalty) be retained in separate fixed deposits
(leasewise) by the State of Goa till the Court delivers the judgment in
these matters on the legality of the leases from which the mineral
ores were extracted. The Court has also directed that this entire
process of verification of the inventory, e-auction and deposit of sale
proceeds be monitored by a Monitoring Committee appointed by the
Court. By the said order dated 11-11-20135, 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
Page of
ϭϱ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
capacity, keeping in mind the principles of b sustainable
development and intergenerational equity and all other relevant
factors. On 11-11-2013 the case was also reserved for judgment.”
11. The main issues raised in GF-I and the submissions recorded on
behalf of the parties are recorded in paragraphs 15 to 17, which are
reproduced below:
“Whether the leases held by the mining lessees have
expired-
15. According to the Justice Shah Commission Report, prior to
07.01.1993 sub-rule (4) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules provided
that the renewal application of the lessee is required to be
disposed of within six months from the date of its receipt and
sub-rule (5) of Rule 24-A provided that if the application is not
disposed of within stipulated time, the same shall be deemed to
have been refused. The Justice Shah Commission has found that
the applications of several mining leases for renewal were not
disposed of a within the stipulated time and there condone the
delay and, therefore, these leases are in contravention of the MC
Rules to and are void and have no effect as provided in Section 19
of the MMDR Act.
16. CEC in its report has stated that under Section 4 of the Abolition
Act, the concessions were abolished from 23-5-1987 and treated
as deemed leases under the MMDR Act and the period of deemed
Page of
ϭϲ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
leases under Section 5 of the Abolition Act was extended up to six
months with effect from the date of assent to the Abolition Act
(23-5-1987) is up to 22-11-1987. CEC has further stated that by
Notifications dated 20-11-1987 and 20-5-1988, however, the
Government of Goa allowed extension of six months each
(totalling one year) for making applications for the first renewal
of deemed mining leases and this one year period expired on 22-
11-1988. CEC has further stated that as per the information
provided to CEC, out of 595 mining concessions abolished and
converted into deemed mining leases under Section 4 of the
Abolition Act, as many as 379 deemed mining lease-holders have
filed applications for the first renewal of the mining leases before
22-11-d 1988 and 59 such lessees have filed applications for the
first renewal of the deemed mining leases after 22-11-1988 Le
beyond the time-limit permitted under Rule 24-A(8) of the MC
Rules.
17. In reply, the learned counsel for the lessees and Mr Arvind Datar,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Goa, submitted
that sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules did not
apply to the State of Goa. They submitted that sub-rules (8) and
(9) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules apply specifically to the State of
Goa and sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules provides that
an application for the first renewal of the deemed mining lease
referred to in Section 4 of the Abolition Act shall be made to the
State Government in Form J before the period of six months of
the mining lease as provided in Section 5(1) of the Abolition Act.
They submitted that f the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of
the MC Rules conferred power on the State Government to
Page of
ϭϳ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
extend time for making such application up to a total period not
extending one year. They submitted that, by two Notifications,
the State Government extended time for a period of one year up
to 22-11-1988 and within this period most of the lessees have
applied for the first renewal of the deemed mining lease. The
learned counsel for the lessees and the learned 9 counsel for the
State of Goa submitted that sub-rule (9) of Rule 24 A of the MC
Rules makes it clear that if an application for first renewal is
made within the time referred to in sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of
the MC Rules or within the time allowed by the State Government
under the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules,
the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by
a further period till the State Government passes orders
thereon.”
12. At this juncture we must take note that though the Petitioner was
not specifically impleaded as party to the GF-I Petition, the Goa Mining
Association was a party to the Petition and was heard along with several
other lessees before the Supreme Court. This is recorded in paragraph 17
of the Judgment. The Judgment then considers the provisions of Rule 24-
A of the MCR, the effect of the amendments, the provisions of Section 8
and 8A of the MMDR, and recorded its conclusions thereon, in the
following manner:
Page of
ϭϴ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
“20. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules has been inserted by
G.S.R 855(E), dated 14-10-1987 and this sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of
the MC Rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (6), an application for the first renewal of a
deemed mining lease, referred to in Section 4 of the Abolition Act,
shall be made to the State Government in Form J before the expiry of
the six months period of deemed lease as provided in Section 5(1) of
the Abolition Act. The proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC
Rules, however, empowers the State Government to extend the time
for making such application up to a total period not extending one
year. In exercise of these powers in the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule
24-A of the MC Rules, the State Government of Goa has in fact,
extended time for making applications for first renewal up to 23-11-
1988, by two Notifications dated 20-11-1987 and 20-5-1988.
21. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules, which was also inserted
by GSR 855(E), dated 14-10-1987, reads as follows:
"In an application for first renewal made within the time referred
to in sub-rule (8) or within the time allowed by the State
Government under the proviso to sub-rule (8), the period of that
lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a period of one
year from the date of expiry of lease or date of receipt of
application, whichever is later, provided that the period of
deemed extension of lease shall end with the date of receipt of the
orders of the State Government thereon, if such orders are made
earlier"
Sub-rule (9) was substituted by G.SR 724(E) dated 27-9-1994 by the
existing sub-rule (9) (extracted above at para 19) to provide that if an
application for first renewal is made within the time referred to in sub-
rule (8) or within the time allowed by the State Government under the
proviso to sub-rule (8), the period of that lease shall be deemed to have
been extended by a further period till the State Government passes
orders thereon. In our considered opinion, the intention of the rule-
making authorities is very clear from sub-rule (9) as was originally
inserted by GSR 855(E), dated 14-10-1987 and sub-rule (9) as was
substituted by GSR 724(B), dated 27-9-1994, that until orders were
passed by the State Government on an application for first renewal of
a lease filed by lessee within the time allow the lease was deemed to
have been extended.
22.The lessees have contended that they had filed their applications
by 22-11-1988 i.e the date up to which the State Government had
Page of
ϭϵ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
allowed time under the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC
Rules. The State Government has also taken the stand that most of the
applications for first renewal were filed within the time allowed by the
State Government and this stand is also supported by the facts found
by CEC The result is that most of the mining leases in which the State
Government has pet passed orders are deemed to have been extended
under sub-rule (9) of Rule 24-A of the. MC Rules Hence, the 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
sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules, which were
applicable generally to an application for renewal of mining leases,
stood excluded to the extent that specific provisions have been
subsequently made by the rule-making authorities in sub-rules 65 and
19) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules in h respect of the deemed leases in
Goa.
23. Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for Goa Foundation,
however, submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act
prior to its amendment provided that a mining lease may be renewed
for only ten years a and, therefore, if the deemed mining leases of the
lessees expired on 22-11-1987, even if the lease was renewed on the
application of first renewal made by the lessees in Goa, the period of
lease under the first renewal would expire on 21-11-1997 and after 21-
11 1997 there can be no deemed extension. Alternatively, he submitted
that sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR-Act as amended by Act
25 of 1994 provided that the mining lease b may be renewed for a
maximum period not exceeding twenty year. He submitted that as the
deemed mining leases expired on 22-11-1987, he lessees would be
entitled to a renewal for a maximum period of twenty years up to 21-
11-2007 and after 21-11-2007, the lessees would not be entitled to any
renewal and hence the lessees were not entitled to operate the lease
beyond 21-11-2007.
..
..
27. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, which provides the
maximum and minimum periods for which a mining lease may be
granted will not apply to deemed mining leases in Goa because sub-
section (1) of Section 5 of the Abolition Act provides that the period of
such deemed mining leases will extend up to six months from the date
Page of
ϮϬ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
of assent notwithstanding anything contained in the MMDR Act. In
other words, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of
Section 8 of the MMDR Act, the period of a deemed mining lease in
Goa was to expire on MMD 22-11-1987 (six months from the date of
assent). Under sub-section (2) o Section 8 of the MMDR Act, a mining
lease may be renewed for a period not exceeding twenty years. Sub-
section (3) of Section 8, however, provides that notwithstanding
anything contained in sub-section (2), if the State Government is of
the opinion that in the interest of mineral development, it is necessary
so to do, it may for reasons to be recorded, authorise the renewal of a
mining lease in respect of minerals not specified in Part A and Part B
of the First Schedule for a further period or periods not exceeding
twenty years in each case Thus, renewal beyond the first renewal for a
period of twenty years is conditional upon the State Government
forming an opinion that in the interest of mineral development, it is
necessary to do so and also conditional upon the State Government
recording reasons for such renewal of La mining lease in respect of
iron ore which is not specified in Part A and Part B of the First
Schedule. In TISCO Ltd. v. Union of India 10, this Court has held b (at
SCC p. 720, para 34) that the language of sub-section (3) of Section 8
is quite clear that ordinarily a lease is not to be granted beyond the
time specified in sub-section (2) and only if the Government is of the
view that it would be in the interest of mineral development, it is
empowered to renew lease of a lessee for a further period after
recording sound reasons for doing so. This Court has further held in
the aforesaid case that this measure has c been incorporated in the
legislative scheme as a safeguard against arbitrariness and the letter
and spirit of the law must be adhered to in a strict manner.
28. 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. Sub-rule (6) of
Rule 24 A of the MC Rules provides that:
24-A. (6) If an application for renewal of a mining lease made
within the time referred to in sub-rule (1) is not disposed of by
the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the
period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a
further period till the State Government passes order thereon."
This sub-rule cannot apply to a renewal under sub-section (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.
Page of
Ϯϭ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
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 sub-rule
(6) of Rule 24 A of the MC Rules will apply to a case of first renewal
under sub section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act other than a case
covered under sub-rule (9) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules, but will not
apply to renewal under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act
our view, the deemed mining leases of the lessees in Goa expired on
22-11-1987 under sub-section (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 a sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act
read with sub-rules (8) and (9) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules expired
on 22-11-2007.”
13. On a reading of the findings of the Supreme Court in the
aforementioned paragraphs, we conclude that the Supreme Court has not
only dealt with a case where the application for first renewal was filed
within time but was pending when the GF-I was passed, but has also dealt
with, both, a situation where, whilst the application was pending, the lease
is to have been deemed granted, if not decided within six months, but also
cases that fell outside the deeming provision. If one reads the discussion
in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court has
considered all these situations, and in our opinion, it would make no
Page of
ϮϮ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
difference if the mine was operated under the deeming provision or as in
the case contended by the Petitioner, where the deemed rejection was
challenged, and on a representation was ultimately granted by the
Supreme Court, in the form of an in principle order extending the first
renewal.
14. This becomes even more clear when one reads the contents of
paragraphs 82 and 87 of the GF-I Judgment which are reproduced below:
“Whether suspension of mining operations in the State of
Goa by Order dated 10-9-2012 of the Government of Goa
and the suspension of the environmental clearances
granted to the mines in the State of Goa by Order dated
14-9-2012 were legal and valid?
82. 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 10-9-2012 of the Government of Goa
suspending mining operations in the State of Goa and the Order
dated 14-9-2012 of 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
10-9-2012 of the Government of Goa and the Order dated 14-9-2012
of MoEF will have to continue till decisions are taken by the State
Government to grant fresh leases and decisions are taken by MoEF
to grant fresh environment clearances for mining projects.
..
Page of
Ϯϯ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
..
87. In the result, we declare that:
87.1. The deemed mining leases of the lessees in Goa expired on
22-11-1987 and the maximum of 20 years renewal period of the
deemed mining leases in Goa expired on 22-11-2007 and
consequently mining by the lessees after 22-11-2007 was illegal
and hence the impugned Order dated 10-9-2012 Government of
Goa and the impugned Order dated 14-9-2012 of MoEF,
Government of India are not liable to be quashed.”
15. Reading of these observations would lead us to conclude that once
the Supreme Court has declared that all mining leases in Goa, whether
expired on 22.11.1987 or on 22.11.2007, would be illegal and further that
once the Order dated 10.09.2012 issued by the Government of Goa
suspending all mining, and Order dated 14.09.2012 issued by the Ministry
of Environment and Forest suspending all ECs granted, would also cover
the case of the Petitioner.
This becomes even more clear when we read the observations of the
Supreme Court in the GF-II Judgment which are reproduced below:
“57. There is no doubt that the renewal of a lease is virtually the same
as the grant of a fresh lease but a converse direction to grant a mining
lease cannot be understood to mean granting a renewal of a mining
lease. Obviously, the grant of a fresh lease is not the same as the
renewal of a lease and when the Court in Goa Foundation required the
Page of
Ϯϰ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
State of Goa to grant a fresh lease, it did not require the State to renew
the existing (expired) lease. The Court could have explicitly declared
and directed the State of Goa to grant a second renewal of the mining
leases rather than to say it in a roundabout manner that it should do
so by granting a fresh lease equivalent to a renewal. We simply cannot
accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the mining
leaseholders in this regard.”
The observations made by the Supreme Court in the above
paragraphs wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the Court could
have explicitly declared and directed the State of Goa to grant a second
renewal of the mining lease rather than say that it should do so by granting
a fresh lease, equivalent to a renewal.
16. In the present case, the Petitioner’s lease expired on 22.11.1987. It
applied for a fresh lease/renewal on 22.11.1988 and in six months of the
application, due to the deemed refusal fiction, it filed Revision Application
which remanded the case back to the DMG who again rejected the renewal
of the first lease which order came to be confirmed in Revision by the
Ministry of Mines on 11.03.2002. The rejection had obviously attained
finality. Almost two and half years later, the Petitioner filed a
representation to the DMG on 07.12.2005 seeking reconsideration of its
renewal application on grounds that the Petitioner had now paid all dues
Page of
Ϯϱ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
and obtained a Clearance Certificate, which was unpaid and not produced
when the Petitioner first asked for renewal. This Court directed the State
to consider the representation. On 11.07.2007, the DMG has recorded in
the Order that the application for reconsideration is liable to be granted
subject to clearance of EC. There was no lease executed thereafter in
favour of the Petitioner even though it obtained the EC clearance on
02.03.2009. Till date, and even at the time the GF-I Judgment was
rendered, no renewed lease was executed in favour of the Petitioner. In
fact, the Petitioner has remained silent, after obtaining the Order dated
11.07.2007, (three months prior to the interim Order in GF-I),
purportedly to renew its lease, till the year 2016 when this Petition was
filed. There is no explanation in the Petition as to why the Petitioner has
taken no steps to seek relief of a direction to the DMG to execute a lease
deed in favour of the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner now seeks in terms
of prayer clause (c) and (d) and order of first renewal and a declaration
that the Petitioner’s mining lease stands extended till 31.03.2020 in terms
of Section 8A of the MMDR. On this conduct alone, we are of the opinion
that the Petition requires to be rejected.
Page of
Ϯϲ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
17. We further take note of the fact that the Petitioner’s mining lease is
covered by the Justice Shah Commission Report and by the two Orders
dated 10.09.2012 and 14.09.2012, respectively of the Government of Goa
and of the MoEF . This was obviously known to the Petitioners since the
interim orders of the Supreme Court passed on 05.10.2012 in the GF-I
Petition. Their intervention application, though refers to a different mine,
refers to their name figuring in the Shah Commission Report and that they
were not in favour of the suspension of mining activities. The application
also submits with respect to their mine TC No.28/1952 that they had
applied for renewal on a deemed extended lease, though the application
for renewal was not granted. The extension sought in that mine was for
first renewal. The Petitioner was therefore very clear in its mind that the
GF-I Petition might affect even a case where the first renewal had not been
granted and was pending and the lessee was operating the mine under the
deeming provision. The intervention application also contains a relief
clause (b) seeking a direction that the interim order passed by the
Supreme Court on 05.10.2012 would not operate against the mining lease
of the applicant TC No.28/1952, in which the first renewal application
itself was pending.
Page of
Ϯϳ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
18. The Petitioners were, in fact, heard by the Supreme Court as is
recorded in the appearances, and though specific orders may not have
been passed on their intervention application, since final judgment in GF-
I was rendered, the relief clause (b) in the application would be deemed to
have been rejected. Thus, even in a case where the first renewal
application was pending, i.e. commencing 22.11.1987 stood rejected. We
also note that it is the Petitioner alone who has 27 other Writ Petitions
which bear Writ Petitions No. 83, 61, 99, 96, 87, 78, 81, 62, 91, 67, 80, 69,
92, 77, 85, 79, 82, 70, 89, 90, 86, 68, 88, 98, 97 and Writ Petition No. 63
of 2017, pending before us on similar lines and we have recorded a
statement of the learned Advocate General, on instructions from the DMG
that no other Petitions on raising a similar case are before this Court. In
these circumstances, the Petitioner, having been heard during hearing of
the GF-I case, ought to have either sought review of the GF-I Judgment, if
it felt its case was an exception, as it purported to have obtained an order
of grant of first renewal on 11.07.2007. Even otherwise, it has not thrown
any independent challenge to Orders dated 10.09.2012 and 14.09.2012
which were upheld by the Supreme Court in GF-I. In any event, we are of
the considered opinion that the Judgment which was rendered by the
Page of
Ϯϴ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
Supreme Court in GF-I, covers even cases where orders to extend a lease
may have been passed, but a lease agreement had not been executed.
19. For all the aforesaid reasons, we reject the Writ Petition. Rule
stands discharged. There shall be costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid by the
Petitioner No.1 to the Goa State Legal Services Authority.
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Page of
Ϯϵ Ϯϵ
th
8 May 2026
Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 08/05/2026 16:01:44