PANJIM: The State government has taken the Supreme Court’s final judgment in the illegal mining case, as its main defence to grant second renewals to 88 iron ore mining leases, stating that the Court had allowed the “State to decide as a matter of policy in what manner mining leases are to be granted in future”.
In an 107-page affidavit filed before the Court on Tuesday, Director of Mines Prasanna Acharya said that the renewals were granted in accordance with the Mines and Minerals Development Regulation (MMDR) Act 1957, Mineral Concession Rules (MCR) 1960, Goa Mining Policy 2013 and Grant of Mining Lease Policy 2014, which speaks about renewals of leases under Section 8 (3) of MMDR Act.
Pleading that the Goa Foundation writ petition be dismissed, the govt has informed the Court that the Indian Bureau of Mines, under Section 5(2) of MMDR Act, has already approved mining plans for all 88 mining leases for a period of 20 years, that is from Nov 23, 2007, when the second renewal applications were filed to Nov 22, 2027. The govt has also stated that the renewals were done in the interest of mineral development, as specified in MCR Rules and State govt policy.
“I state that in all the 88 mining leases, second renewal orders of deemed mining leases have been issued in conformity with the order of this Hon’ble Apex Court dated 21/04/2014 and also provisions of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957, and Rule 24(A)3 of the MCR, 1960. As per the Abolition Act read with the MMDR Act 1957, the first renewal period of deemed Mining Lease is wef 23.01.1987 till 22.11.2007. As per Rule 24A of MCR 1960, Renewal Applications in Form J are to be filed one year before expiry of the lease period ie in case of deemed leases, the renewal applications ought to have been filed on or before 22/11/2006,” Acharya said.
Speaking to Herald, State Advocate General Atmaram Nadkarni confirming filling of affidavit in the SC said the State has dismissed the contentions of GF. He said that 7 mining firms have filed their affidavits.
The State govt defence, which is completely based on the Apex Court’s judgment dated April 21, 2014, has pointed out that nowhere in the judgment the court has stated that renewals under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, 1957 is not available in cases of leases in Goa or that the State govt was in anyway denuded from exercising its powers under the MMDR Act, 1957.
“It is for the State govt to decide as a matter of policy in what manner mining leases are to be granted in future but the constitutionality or legality of the decision of the State govt can be examined by the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review,” the govt said quoting the SC judgment.
The State stressed that the SC had directed that the State may grant mining leases of iron ore and other ore in Goa in accordance with its policy decision and in accordance with the MMDR Act and the Rules made there under in consonance with the constitutional provisions.
Admitting that it has granted 31 lease renewals on Jan 12, the day when the MMDR Ordinance 2015 was issued allowing auction of mining leases, the State has said that the renewal process, following cabinet approval started in Nov 5, 2014 to Jan 12, 2015 and that there was no mass attempt to sabotage the ordinance. It has also pointed out that it did not renew two leases, which were approved by State govt on Jan 13.
State has defended the act of MoEF to lift the abeyance on environment clearances and the GSPCB to grant Consent to Operate to renewed mining leases.
The State has pleaded that further delay in resumption of mining or any interim stay would have adverse impact on over 2.3 lakh people dependent on the activity.
