The petitioner, the Goa Foundation, said the Supreme Court declared all the 88 leaseholders to be without a valid mining lease from November 22, 2001 and without valid environment clearance, hence, the petitioner said that the mining activities undertaken by them are illegal BASURI DESAI has the details
The petitioner Goa Foundation (GF) had submitted before Bombay High Court at Goa that the Supreme Court judgment dated February 7, 2018 was “wilfully misconstrued” as a direction to continue and intensity mining extraction in the view of its impending closure by the State Government, with a “well planned intention” to allow mining activities to continue in the State after March 15, 2018.
“The directions of the Supreme Court in respect of final and absolute mine closure activities of all 88 former leaseholders by March 15, 2018 were wilfully misconstrued as a direction to continue and intensity mining extraction in view of its impending closure, only to allow mining activities to continue in the State after March 15, 2018,” GF represented by Adv Norma Alvares had said in her submission.
“The foul play was intended and planned and the State government recklessly went along with the scheme even though it was required to take a different view of the matter in the context of the requirements of law,” petitioner added.
The petitioner had also sought relief for a declaration that all mineral ores extracted and transported from mining areas (whether lying inside or outside the so-called lease area) are properties of the State of Goa and therefore cannot be subject matter of commercial transaction or trade or transport after March 15 by any person other than the State.
“Recovery of proceeds from any transport and sale of mineral ore post March 15 by the former 88 leaseholders which must be deposited in the Goa Iron Ore Permanent Fund,” the petitioner had pleaded adding that the State government order allowing transportation of ore post March 15 be quashed.
Stating that the Supreme Court by its judgment declared all the 88 leaseholders to be without a valid mining lease from November 22, 2001 and without valid environment clearance, hence, the petitioner said that the mining activities undertaken by them are illegal. The petitioner further contended that the time granted by court from February 7 to March 15 was to manage their affairs, means to wind up the activities and go for closer and not to undertake mining activities.
Adv Alvares had also submitted that from February 7 to March 15, total fresh production was 2.247 million tonnes while the transportation was 6.1 million tonnes.
The petitioner also contended that transportation is very much part of mining operations and cannot be termed as two different concepts.