Mining Leases Lapsed Post-2007 Independent of Renewal Application Status or "In Principle" Grant Orders

The Petitioners held a mining concession (TC No. 44/1951) granted by the Portuguese Government, which was deemed a mining lease under the Abolition Act, 1987

the State Government reconsidered following a High Court direction and issued an "in-principle" grant on July 11, 2007, subject to Environmental Clearance (EC)

The Petitioners obtained EC in 2009 and operated briefly until the Supreme Court (SC) suspended all mining in Goa via an interim order on October 5, 2012, based on the Shah Commission Report

Following the SC’s final judgment in Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) (“GF-I”), the Director of Mines & Geology (DMG) declared the lease lapsed as of November 22, 2007

The Petitioners challenged this lapsing order and a subsequent revisional dismissal, arguing their lease was a specific grant under Section 8 of the MMDR Act, not a "deemed renewal" hit by the GF-I judgment

1. Whether the Petitioner’s mining lease, having received an "in-principle" grant in 2007, is exempt from the declaration in GF-I that all Goa mining leases expired by November 22, 2007

2. Whether the Petitioners' conduct, including the failure to execute a formal lease deed and participating as an intervenor in the GF-I proceedings without raising these specific grounds, precludes them from seeking relief

The Court applied the Supreme Court's declarations in Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 590 (GF-I) and Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Limited (2018) 4 SCC 218 (GF-II), which established that all deemed mining leases in Goa expired by November 22, 1987, and any subsequent renewals (maximum 20 years) expired by November 22, 2007

Section 8(3) of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951, noting that renewals beyond the first period require express orders and recorded reasons in the interest of mineral development

the principle of "constructive res judicata" and the requirement of executing a formal lease deed under Rule 31 of the Mineral Concession Rules (MCR), 1960

The Court reasoned that the GF-I declaration was categorical: all mining operations in Goa after November 22, 2007, were illegal

It rejected the Petitioners' argument that their lease was "alive" due to the 2007 order, noting that the order was merely "in-principle" and no formal lease agreement was ever executed

The Court observed that the Petitioners remained silent from 2007 until 2016 without seeking a writ to execute the deed, which undermined their claim

the Court found that because the Petitioner’s mine was listed in the Shah Commission Report and they had filed an intervention in the GF-I proceedings regarding another lease, they were fully aware of the legal landscape; failing to seek a review of GF-I or challenge the 2012 suspension orders at the appropriate time barred them from doing so now

The Court concluded that GF-I covers cases where even if an extension order was passed, no lease agreement was signed

The Writ Petition was rejected, and the rule was discharged. The Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on Petitioner No. 1, payable to the Goa State Legal Services Authority, noting the Petitioner’s conduct and the pendency of 27 similar petitions filed by the same party