CHALLENGE 1
Mines director himself had asked in his affidavit to the High Court: Lease holders didn’t apply for renewals under Section 8 (iii) of MMDR Act. So how could they be renewed under that section?
He then went and renewed them, ignoring his own question to the High Court
The government has batted on different sides at different times. In its reply to a series of petitions filed by mine owners asking for directions to renew mining leases, the State as respondent, in an affidavit filed by Director Mines Prasanna Acharya, stated
“Under Section 8(3) (of the MMDR Act), the State is required to consider whether it is in the interest of mineral development to grant second or subsequent renewal. There was no such consideration and hence, an application under Section 8(3) was not even filed as was required of lease holders. In as much what is in the interest if mineral development had to be specifically shown and recorded and further considered by the State and therefore it was not a mere matter of change of section or change of number of the section but an exercise which ought to have been a fool proof exercise to find whether it was in the interest of mineral development or not”
While the Mines Director left room to argue for an exit clause by saying that it was up to the State to form policy, no state policy can supersede a central MMDR Act which states that if a renewal has to be made under section 8 (iii), which earlier covered second renewals (which covers almost all Goa’s leases), an application is to be made under Section 8 (iii). All original applications for renewals were made under Section 8 (ii), a fact said in an Affidavit-in-Reply, in the High Court by Goa’s Director Mines.
CHALLENGE 2
Double Standards: The government first said, the Court cannot decide the policy of the State. But while framing policy, the government said they were dictated by the Court
The government when it was opposing lease renewals: “I state that it is within the powers of the State government to consider the renewal applications under 8(3) and take a view on the same but there cannot be an obvious direction from this Hon’ble Court preempting the conditions of the said policy” –Mines Director Acharya to the High Court
The govt while trying to push for renewing leases (to big daddy and powerful daddy mine owners): It turned the above logic upside down. Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar in his assembly speech on the Grant of Mining Lease policy said that as a “matter of natural choice”, the government would have followed the process of competitive bidding (as opposed to renewing leases), the judgment of the High Court is an intervening factor. “This judgment and order of the High Court virtually leaves no choice to the State government, to “completely abandon the process of competitive bidding”.
CHALLENGE 3:
No IBM approval under Section 8(iii) for at least 31 key leases
The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act clearly states that all renewals have to be ratified by the Indian Bureau of Mines. However if there is no response from the IBM in three months, renewals are deemed to be approved. Between January 5 to January 12, 2015, before and on the day, the Mining ordinance (MMDR Amendment Ordinance 2015) came into force, 56 mining leases were renewed. None of these leases have got IBM’s approval for renewal under section 8(iii) of the MMDR act and therefore not valid. Or have they been notified.
