BY ORDER OF COURT >>
ON TRANSPORTATION
OF ROYALTY-PAID ORE
* Why it (govt) didn’t explore any other options which could be in the overall interest of the state
* The impugned decision of the State of Goa dated 21 March 2018 is quashed and set aside
ON ORE THAT NOW CAN
NOT BE TRANSPORTED
* Take a decision within four weeks… in view of the legal position regarding its ownership rights as a custodian of the mineral resources
* ... and its powers to take possession, sell and dispose of the ore in question to utilize the proceeds for a public purpose
ON MINE SAFETY
* Chief Secretary, State of Goa directed to hold a meeting with all the concerned officers within a period of 15 days from to chalk out a comprehensive plan for the safety of the mines in question
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PANAJI: The Bombay High Court at Goa has set aside the decision of the Goa Government to permit transportation of the royalty-paid ore after 15 March 2018 in respect of 88 leases and has only offered relief to those leaseholders who approached the Supreme Court and whose ore the Supreme Court allowed to transport if it was stacked on jetties before March 15.
Disposing a petition filed by the Goa Foundation challenging the government’s decision to allow the transportation of 'royalty paid ore' after March 15 on grounds that the ore belongs to the leaseholders since they have paid royalty, the High Court questioned the State government why it didn’t explore any other options which could be in the overall interest of the state.
“The impugned decision of the State of Goa dated 21 March 2018 to permit transportation of the royalty paid ore after 15 March 2018 in respect of 88 leases, not covered by the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 4 April 2018 in respect of the Appellants before the Supreme Court therein, is quashed and set aside,” the High Court ruled.
With respect to other ore lying around, that now cannot the transported, the High Court has asked the State Government to “take a decision within four weeks… in view of the legal position regarding its ownership rights as a custodian of the mineral resources and its powers to take possession, sell and dispose of the ore in question to utilize the proceeds for a public purpose.”
The crux of the petition lay on the interpretation of the Supreme Court judgement of February 7, which declared the renewals as illegal, cancelled the environmental clearances and the leases and asked the mining leaseholders to “manage their affairs” and may continue “mining operations” till March 15.
“Time is granted to arrange affairs, and to enable arranging the affairs, that a liberty is granted to carry out mining operations. It is a permission with a limited objective. Thus, the liberty granted to carry out mining operations till 15 March 2018 was just a component of larger indulgence given by the Supreme Court to arrange the affairs within five weeks. But this was not a charter to continue excavation as if nothing was wrong,” the High Court observed.
“Instead, the State chose to confer a complete and unfettered right on the leaseholders. In our respectful reading of the judgment, and looking at the jurisprudence it invokes, we are of the respectful opinion that the Supreme Court did not permit such course of action. If the interpretation of the State and leaseholders and traders is accepted that full-fledged mining excavation was permitted till 15 March 2018, then where is the time left to manage affairs thereafter. The most important phrase specifically used by the Supreme Court “time to arrange their affairs” would become meaningless,” the High Court ruled.
The State had argued that the leaseholders had a right to excavate till March 15.
With regards to mine safety, the High Court has directed the Chief Secretary, State of Goa to hold a meeting with all the concerned officers within a period of 15 days from today to chalk out a comprehensive plan for the safety of the mines in question.”
And finally, with regard to the discrepancies with regards to records of how much is extracted, the High Court directed that the “Controller General of Indian Bureau of Mines will hold an enquiry to verify the correctness of the mining data maintained by the State of Goa in light of the disparity noticed and publish the report of such inquiry in the public domain, within a period of six months from today.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State refused to consider as
many as seven options: HC
PANAJI: The High Court in its judgement disallowing the transport of royalty paid ore has questioned the State government for having adopted a “one track approach” after the Supreme Court order “as if no other option in public interest was available.” “Either in the affidavit in reply, nor in the arguments we have been informed by the State as to what was the overriding public interest in adopting this interpretation in the meeting of 21 March 2018. The State has emphatically asserted that the mining lease holders have full right to extract ore till 15 March 2018, pay royalty and transport the ore anytime they wish, since they are the owners after royalty is paid. The right of the mining lease holders is the foundation of the decision dated 21 March 2018,” the High Court observed.
The High Court said that the State refused to consider as many as seven options available before it.
First and foremost being, whether since no transportation (till the ship) was allowed after 15 March 2018 as was the decision earlier, such non transported ore will revert back to its original owner, that is the State and consequently to the people. Second, whether this Ore could be treated as a public property, taken possession of and sold, to raise revenue for the public purpose. Third, whether by focusing on the aspect of receipt of royalty, a pittance State was sacrificing the opportunity of maximizing revenue by selling the Ore, and whether the State should be satisfied only with some crumbs in the form of royalty, and if it comes to a legal claim, royalty could be returned. Fourth, whether the State could, treating this ore as public property, transport it itself to give work to truck and barge owners. Fifth, whether the proceeds from the sale of such ore could be used to help the mining and transport workers affected by the closure. Sixth, whether its decision was keeping in mind the interest of the mining affected villages and the fragile ecology of Goa. Seventh, whether the State is again perceived as falling foul of the charge that State of Goa has only the mining lease holders’ interest at heart.
“Even otherwise, the State Government could have by itself employed the services of the very same barge and truck owners to transport the ore, giving them employment. But one track approach was adopted,” the High Court ruled.
The HC also pointed out another stark contrast.
“In this Petition, the State has filed 66 pages affidavit taking numerous legal points. It was filed with promptitude and obviously a substantial effort is put in it by the State machinery. Simultaneously we are hearing other public interest litigations in respect of the mining affected villages. These villages have suffered severe air pollution due to mining… In these petitions, there was absolute lack of any response from the State. We had to literally push the State on every date to do something to alleviate the suffering of the innocent mining affected. This sharp contrast in the State response in respect of these two ends of mining spectrum, the Mining Affected and the Mining Beneficiaries, is too stark for us not to notice,” the HC observed.
