PANJIM: Goa Foundation (GF) on Wednesday informed the High Court of Bombay at Goa that the Supreme Court judgment dated February 7 was “willfully misconstrued” as a direction to continue and intensify mining extraction in 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.
The State government, through Advocate General Dattaprasad Lawande, rejected the submission of the petitioner stating that the Supreme Court allowed mining operations till March 15 and there is no mention of transportation activities as the Apex Court itself is conscious of the fact that mining operations and transportation are two distinct factors.
The Division Bench comprising Justice N M Jamdar and Justice Prithviraj Chauhan is hearing the final arguments in the petition filed by GF opposing the transportation of ore post March 15. The arguments will continue on Thursday.
“The directions of the Supreme Court in respect of final and absolute mine closure activities of all 88 former leaseholders by March 15, were willfully 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,” GF represented by Adv Norma Alvares said.
“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 has 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 property 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 pleaded adding that the State government order allowing transportation of ore post March 15 be quashed.
Stating that the Supreme Court declared all 88 leaseholders to be without a valid mining lease from November 22, 2001 and without valid environment clearance, the petitioner said that mining activities undertaken by them are illegal. GF further said that the time granted by the court from February 7 to March 15 was to manage their affairs means to wind up the activities and go for closure and not to undertake mining activities.
Alvares said that from February 7 to March 15, fresh production was 2.247 million tonnes while transportation was 6.1 million tonnes. GF also contended that transportation is part of the mining operation and cannot be termed as a different concept.
The State in its submission said that the interim relief sought by the petitioner is intended towards modifying the Apex Court judgment which is impermissible. The State informed the Court that the Apex Court had allowed mining operations to continue till March 15 and there was no mention of transportation.
The Advocate General took the Court to the SC judgment dated October 5, 2012 in the Goa Foundation matter, wherein the Court categorically directed the government to stop all mining operations and transportation of ore. “Clearly indicating that both are two distinct and different concepts of iron ore activities,” he said.
AG Lawande pointed out before the Court that the Supreme Court has not termed mining activities undertaken from 2015-2018 as illegal, as claimed by the petitioner that the validity of the leases expired in November 2007. “Apex Court in its earlier judgment had said that the mining activities undertaken from 2007 to 2012 are illegal but nothing as such is mentioned in the latest order,” he said.
“All the mines had valid lease till it was set aside by the Supreme Court through a judgment on February 7,” he said adding allowing mining operations till March 15 was a justice done to the leaseholders by the Supreme Court.
The State also pointed out that if the petitioner claims that as on date there are no leases and no lease boundaries, then how will the State go for auction or granting of fresh leases.
