While the Goa Foundation has made the then Mines and Chief  Minister Laxmikant Parsekar, former Mines Secretary Pawan Kumar Sain and Mines Director Prasanna Acharya as respondents for the illegal grant of mining leases, in violation of the Supreme Court judgment and provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR), in a Lokayukta complaint, it is high time that all the legal opinions, affidavits and submissions made during the period before the renewal of leases are placed on record. While the executive head of the state, Mr Laxmikant Parsekar, will have to face any such complaint, due to the ‘bucks stops here principle’, it is critical to evaluate the legal advice he received and went by.

During a perusal of legal documents and submissions and recent statements and media reports, there are two interesting facts that need to be flagged. In his affidavit in submission to the petition moved by one of the mining leases, mines Director Prasanna Acharya made a detailed and comprehensive submission on why leases should not be renewed. Acharya went on to state that that a decision to renew would go against the Supreme Court judgment linked to the Shah Commission report. Importantly, Acharya, spoke for the state when he said that in all matters, the MMDR act must be the basis.

Now let us hold this thought for moment while we look at this. After the Supreme Court judgment of February 7 2018, cancelling the renewal of 88 leases, the former Advocate General and now Additional Solicitor General stated that as the state’s Advocate General, he had recommended that these controversial leases be auctioned, and not renewed.

The Chief Minister of the state when this recommendation would have been made was Mr Laxmikant Parsekar. Speaking to a national economic paper, Mr Parsekar said on Thursday, that this was not a time to embarrass the government. “All I can tell you is what I wrote on those files. It is, ‘In view of the above opinions, you are directed to pass the appropriate orders’. Had I overruled these opinions, suggested something else, you could have said it was a decision I took.”

Let’s carefully process this. Mr Parsekar is saying that he asked appropriate orders to be passed, (which is to renew leases), based on legal opinion. Hence he indicated clearly that the opinion given to him was that leases should be renewed.

He further told the Economic paper “A CM is advised by the Chief Secretary, the Advocate General, and in this case, Mines Secretary and Director of Mines, it is their job to tell the government what is the right decision. And I have not overruled anybody’s opinion”.

So we have a piquant situation where the former Advocate General, stated after the Feb 7 judgment that head all along maintained that leases should be auctioned while the then Chief Minister, Parsekar says he went by the opinion o the AG, Mines director and Director Mines and renewed the leases, meaning therefore that the opinion, including legal opinion was to renew.

The Mines Director’s position that leases should not be renewed is clearly on record in his affidavit in submission in one of the petitions filed by a lease holder for renewal.

Between November 5 2014 and Jan 12, 2015, the government had renewed  88 lapsed leases inst,ead of granting them afresh, as it had been directed to do by the Supreme Court on April 21, 2014. Within a week of January 5, 2015, when it became public that the Centre was changing mining laws to make auction mandatory, the Goa government had “granted a second renewal to 25 mining leases and to make matters worse, a second renewal was granted to 31 mining leases on 12th January, 2015 the day the Ordinance came into force ....”

Thus it is mandatory that the opinions including all the legal opinions at different stages be examined thoroughly to ascertain who in positions of decision making, had categorically influenced the then Chief Minister to take a decision to renew all leases when the High Court order on lease renewals merely stated that leases from which stamp duty had been taken (28 in number) should be renewed and decision should be taken by the state for the rest.

This is something that the people of Goa must know as it is a decision which has been severely criticized by the Apex Court and brought the state government’s decision making to shame and disrepute.