Every decision taken by state backed by mineral policy: DMG's affidavit
Byline: The Goan Network
Prasanna Acharya, director of mines and geology (DMG), has filed a counter affidavit in response to Goa Foundation’s writ petition challenging state government’s renewal of 88 mining leases. The Goan Everyday brings to its readers the most salient points on which DMG and Goa Foundation had opposing stands. In nutshell, Goa Foundation had alleged that 88 mining leases were renewed in haphazard manner, in breach of law and in breach of directions set by Supreme Court in its April 21, 2014 judgement. DMG denied all the allegations and said that every decision taken by the state government was backed by its mineral policy and the spirit of law
*******************************
Goa Foundation: The state government had granted approval en masse for renewals of mining leases in Goa, which were held expired by the Supreme Court
DMG: It is wrong to suggest that all 88 mining lease renewals were done on one day as is suggested by the petitioner. The renewal applications were filed in 2006 by mining companies and these applications were processed at various points in time. In 2007, we had started the process of seeking Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM)’s report. Order to renew mining leases was passed starting from Nov 05, 2014 to January 12, 2015 following Goa Mineral Policy 2013 and after framing Goa Grant of Mining Lease Policy 2014 which was in lines with directions issues by Supreme Court’s April 21, 2014’s judgement. I deny the petitioner’s contentions that the leases in Goa held by mining leaseholders were dead leases which could not be renewed. The petitioner apparently have lost sight of the fact that it was always open in law for the state government to relate back the renewal to the date of expiry of the lease.
******************************
Goa Foundation: The renewals prima facie discloses mala fides, collusion between mining companies and state authorities, circumvention and violation of the Supreme Court’s April 21, 2014 and the provisions of Minerals and Mines Development Regulation Act (MMDR Act)
DMG: I deny that the renewals were in breach of the Supreme Court’s judgement. I deny that there was any malafide intent to beat the law. The renewals were granted based on the provisions of MMDR act, which has provisions for renewals under section 8(3). The policy decision of the state government regarding renewals is also reflected in Goa Mineral Policy, 2013 and 2014. The details with regards to policy decision of prioritization of considering renewals of applicants etc can be seen in the Goa Grant of Mining Leases Policy, 2014, for which the proposal was moved on September 09, 2014.The proposal was thereafter accepted by the state government on September 29, 2014, and by the state cabinet on October 1, 2014 and November 4, 2014 and published thereto
*******************************
Goa Foundation: The second renewal of mining leases under section 8(3) of MMDR act, the Supreme Court had held, is not a right but granted only as an exception. The leases couldn’t have been issued mechanically and without application of mind
DMG: It is not true to suggest that Supreme Court had held that renewals could only be granted in exceptional cases. None of the leases were renewed mechanically without application of mind as alleged. As permitted under section 8 (3) of MMDR act, these leases were renewed because it is in “interest of mineral development”. The renewals are subject to several conditions like the renewal doesn’t absolve the lessee from any action under MMDR Act and solely on the basis of this renewal no mining operations can be undertaken unless all clearances and permissions are in place
****************************
Goa Foundation: The state of Goa started granting renewal of leases post High Court’s order despite the fact that the government was aware that the directions of the court were not in conformity with the direction of Supreme Court’s judgement of April 21, 2014
DMG: The petitioner has challenged the judgement and order of High Court. Such kind of challenge to reasoning of High Court by filing a writ petition is not known to law. High Court’s order dating August 13, 2014 had directed the state government to execute the mining leases in case of certain lease holders and in case of other to consider their applications and take a decision in a time bound manner.
