TEAM HERALD
PANJIM: If a week is a long time in politics, 13 weeks is a lifetime. A lifetime, when the government’s mood, decisions and policies, changes from absolute white to black with no shades of grey in between. In the 13 weeks, from June 25 to October 1, the goal posts laid down by the government in opposing the renewal of leases, changed completely, to justify its decision to renewing 27 leases, ostensibly under its Goa Grant of Mining Leases policy. While Herald predicts that the government will respond to this by saying that it was bound by the High Court decision to renew leases, it states that the government had a fit case to appeal in the Apex court, against the ruling on lease renewals, on the strong grounds that it laid out in its affidavit in the High Court.
The reasons laid down in the grant of Mining Leases policy of October 1, justifying the lease renewals, fly in the face of the government own stand in the High Court on June 25, on the very specific reasons.
Followed Supreme Court first, then its own logic later: In its affidavit in reply in the High Court the government view was “The Supreme Court has held that all mining leases in Goa have expired on 22/11/2007. Therefore it does not in any way carve out any exception whatsoever with respect to mines for whom the alleged renewal was granted under section 8(2). Please note the Goa government has called the renewals “alleged” renewals in its June 25 petition.
On October 1, the situation changed drastically. As a part of its grant of Mining Leases Policy 2014, it included Chief Minister Parrikar’s statement on a “short duration discussion” on mining leases. See the change of tone in renewing mining leases “The then state government of Goa allowed the working of mines from 2007 to 2012 based on Deemed Extension basis without actually dealing with the renewal applications which were filed by the mining lease holders well on time. Non-disposal by the state government cannot be attributed to be the fault of the lease holders.”
Applications under Sec 8(2), renewals under section 8 (3): The second issue on where there has been a huge deviation is the actual section under which the leases are being renewed. The grant of mining leases policy states that the government has exercised its powers under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act to consider each of the leases for renewal. What defies logic is all the lease renewals were earlier applied under Section 8(2) which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Section 8(3) deals with second renewals, as all these leases are but not applied under this section.
More than a change of a mere section: Further, the government has gone against its own stand in the High Court on how Section 8(3) needs to be applied. It stated in its affidavit “Under Section 8(3) the State is required to consider whether it is in the interest of the 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 the State holders. In as much as to what is in the interest of mineral development had to be specifically shown and recorded and further considered by the State and therefore, it was not a matter of mere change of section or change of number of the section but an exercise that ought to have been a foolproof exercise to find out whether it was in the interest of mineral development or not.”
The same petition does indeed state that nothing stops the government from taking executive policy decision, which the grant of Mining Leases policy ostensible is. But can the policy just state that renewals are being under section 8(iii), when none of the applications for renewal under 8(iii) are in place or “the interest of mineral development” established and recorded.
Section changed: But that’s exactly what it has gone ahead and done, stating in its lease policy that it has exercised its power under Section 8(iii) of the MMDR Act to renew leases “in principle”.
The issue here is not about legality or illegality. It’s about the government talking a clear stand opposing lease renewals on the basis of very clear arguments, in the High Court on June 25. And then in its Grant of Lease policy on October 1 (which in effect is to facilitate lease renewals of those leases for which stamp duty has been accepted), it has gone against its very arguments in Court, where it opposed the grant of renewal of leases stating that the “so called renewals are Non est and a complete nullity.”
(Tomorrow Part 2)
Changing colours on lease renewals
June 25 – Govt in affidavit in HC in reply to petitions seeking lease renewals, says:
SC stated that all leases were illegal. Does not exempt mines for whom “alleged renewal” was granted (as stated in the Govt’s mineral policy of September 2013
Oct 1 – Govt in its Mining Leases policy 2014 says:
From 2007 to 2012 mines worked under Deemed Extension, renewal applications filed on time, mini owners cannot be faulted for delay of State government in disposing their applications
June 25 – The govt says:
There was no consideration by the government on whether lease renewals were in the interest of mineral development; No application for lease renewal under Section 8(iii) was filed by lease holders; What is in the interest of mineral development was not shown or recorded; Change from Section 8 (ii) to 8 (iii) is not a mere change of section or number
Oct 1: The Govt says:
In the exercise of its powers under Section 8(iii), it has decided “in principle” to follow the route of renewal under Section 8(iiii) subject to conditions
