PANAJI
The Supreme Court of India has allowed those mining leaseholders who approached the court for relief, time until the end of January 2021 to transport ore that was already mined before March 15, 2018 but has given the Government of Goa the liberty to confiscate any ore that is left on site thereafter.
Disposing of a bunch of petitions filed by a group of mining companies, the Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India S A Bobde along with A S Bopanna and A V Subramanian, however said that the court was proceeding on “good faith that all
mining activities have been stopped on 15.03.2018 and that the mineral mined until then is what is sought to be removed now.”
“The lessees are granted time up to end of January, 2021 for the removal of the minerals excavated/mined on or before 15.03.2018 subject to payment of royalties and other charges; The quantity of mineral to be removed by each of the lessees shall be determined by the concerned officials with reference to the records of the Government maintained at the relevant point of time,” the Supreme Court said.
“If within the time stipulated above, the lessees could not remove the mineral, the Government shall invoke the power under Rule 12(1)(hh),” the Supreme Court said. The rule states that any ore left after leases have expired is deemed to become the property of the State Government and may be sold or disposed of in such manner as the State Government shall deem fit without liability to pay any compensation or to account to the lessee in respect thereof.
The Supreme Court heard a bunch applications filed by the lessees of manganese/iron ore mines, seeking extension of time for the transportation of the mineral alleged to have been mined before 15.03.2018, as well as an application seeking clarification of the earlier orders of the Supreme Court that was filed by the Goa Foundation, which was also a party in the case.
The lessees argued before the court that the time granted by this Court to the lease holders, by the order dated 30.01.2020 expired on 30.07.2020 but that a lockdown was clamped on 24.03.2020 due to the pandemic. They also claimed delay on the part of the statutory authorities in issuing transit permits for the transportation of the royalty paid ore.
Besides the leaseholders who had earlier approached the court for extension of time another mining leaseholder also approached the Supreme Court contending that the benefit of extension of time should be granted also to them, but his application was rejected.
“Even if he had benefited by the judgment dated 30.01.2020, by virtue of the policy of the State dated 21.03.2018, which we upheld, the applicant cannot now seek the benefit of extension. Therefore, the application for intervention is dismissed,” the Supreme Court said.
The Goa Foundation had also sought clarification of the earlier orders claiming that the orders should only apply to that ore for which royalty was already paid. “The ore on which royalty had not already been paid, can never be removed,” the Goa Foundation had said.
However the Supreme Court said that it would amount of a review of the earlier order.
“The contention of the lessees that royalty is payable at the time of removal or consumption, cannot be rejected outright. We must keep in mind the fact that we are now dealing with the miscellaneous applications in a disposed of matter. Therefore, a substantial question as to when the royalty is payable, cannot be decided at this stage.
“The question whether royalty had already been paid or not assumed significance in the second round of litigation, in respect of the minerals excavated/mined on or before 15.03.2018 and removed to jetties. [The order] used the expression “royalty paid ore”, in the context of the mineral removed from the mines and brought to the jetties on or before 15.03.2018. Therefore, the first objection of Goa Foundation cannot be sustained. In any case the acceptance of the said objection would tantamount to reviewing the judgment dated 30.01.2020, without an application for review,” the Court said.
With regard to the second point that the ore lying on the leases should be now confiscated by the government since it is more than six months, the Court said that it was too late to bring such contentions.
“Goa Foundation may be right in contending that the State Government should have invoked Rule 12(1)(hh) to confiscate the mineral allegedly lying at site for the past more than 2 1â„2 years. But the difficulty today is that Rule 12(1)(hh) was not pressed into service before this Court, when this Court rendered its judgment dated 30.01.2020. As a result, the judgment dated 30.01.2020 giving six months’ time to the lessees to remove the material, has attained finality,” the Court said.
“If the lessees had removed the material within the six months’ period prescribed in the judgment 30.01.2020, Goa Foundation could not have come up with this contention,” the Supreme Court said.
“Having said that, we should also clarify that we should not be understood as saying as though the power under Rule 12(1) (hh) is no more available to the State. Even now there is no impediment for the State to invoke Rule 12(1)(hh),” the Supreme Court said.
