PANJIM: Stating that the Supreme Court’s judgment has been “misinterpreted” and “misconceived” by the petitioner Goa Foundation, the State Government on Thursday told the Bombay High Court at Goa that unless there is statutory provision or specific directions from the Apex Court that the iron ore excavated for the last three years is illegal and that it vests with State, there cannot be a stay on the transportation of ore lying outside the lease area.
The respondents — both State Government and the mining companies –pointed out before the division bench that the petitioner is trying to offend the statutory interpretation by putting across that the Supreme Court itself was not aware of the distinction between the mining operation, mining activities, mining related activities and transportation.
The respondents pointed out that the Supreme Court judgment dated October 5, 2012, specifically directed the leaseholders to stop all the mining operations and transportations with immediate effect, the recent February 7 order only speaks about stopping mining operations from March 16 onwards.
The Division bench comprising of Justice N M Jamdar and Justice Prithviraj Chauhan are hearing the final arguments in the petition filed by Goa Foundation opposing the transportation of ore post February 7. The arguments will continue on Friday.
Advocate General (AG) Dattaprasad Lawande said that till the time the State comes out with a policy to grant fresh mining leases, the leaseholders are asked to undertake the mining safety measures at the sites ahead of monsoon.
Lawande said that the directions of the State government are very clear that the ore for which royalty is paid and is lying outside the lease area on or before March 15, only that ore can be transported and not any other ore. “Unless there is statutory provision or specific directions from the Apex Court that the iron ore excavated for last three years is illegal and that it vests with State, there cannot be stay on the transportation of ore, lying outside the lease area,” he said.
“If the court establishes that the excavation of ore from 2015 to March 15, 2018 is illegal then we will stop the transportation immediately,” AG said in his submission adding that once the ore is taken out of the mining lease area by paying the royalty, the ore legitimately belongs to the person who had paid the royalty.
He said that the transportation is always considered as part of mining activity and not mining operations.
“The petitioner has misinterpreted and misconceived the Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court has consciously used the word mining operation as they were very well aware about the definition and the implications. The petitioner too is also conscious of the fact what is mining operation, mining activities and transportation, but still deliberately trying to misinterpret it,” he said.
