CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED versus GOA FOUNDATION & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 30-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED
v.
GOA FOUNDATION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 839 of 2020 Etc.)
JANUARY 30, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Mines and Minerals:
Supreme Court in Goa Foundation II case setting aside second
renewal of mining leases, gave time to the mining leaseholders (who
were given second renewal) to manage their affairs till 15.3.2018
and were directed to stop all mining operations w.e.f. 16.3.2018 –
State decided to permit the mining leaseholders to pay royalty on
the minerals already mined till 15.3.2018 and transport the same –
In a writ petition challenging order of the State High Court by interim
order suspended transportation of all minerals and by final order
quashed the decision of the State – Appeal to Supreme Court by
mining leaseholders – Held: In view of the decision in Goa
Foundation II case, and two further orders passed by the same
Bench (permitting transportation of royalty paid minerals lying on
jetties on or before 15.3.2018) and in view of legislative policy as
per Rule 12(1)(gg) of Mineral Concession Rules granting six months
period for removal of the minerals, the mineral on which royalty
was paid should be allowed to be transported – Minerals (Other
than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession
Rules, 2016 – r. 12(1)(gg).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The direction given in paragraph 154.6 of *Goa
Foundation II Case is two-fold. Firstly, the mining leaseholders
are given time to manage their affairs and to continue their mining
operations till 15.3.2018. The second is a negative direction. They
are directed to stop all mining operations with effect from
16.3.2018 until fresh mining  leases (not fresh renewals or other
renewals) are granted and fresh environmental clearances are
granted. [Para 24][543-F-G]
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 533
533
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
2. Applying the principle of plain and literal interpretation,
the direction would stop all mining activities from 16.3.2018.
However, from the date of the order i.e. 7.2.2018 till 15.3.2018,
the lessees were permitted to continue with the mining activities
and manage their affairs. [Para 25][543-H]
3. A perusal of clause (gg) of Rule 12(1) of Minerals (Other
than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession
Rules, 2016 would reveal, that on the expiry or sooner
termination of the lease term, six months period is granted to
the lessees to remove for its own benefit, all or any ore mineral
excavated during the currency of the lease, engines, machinery,
plant, buildings, structures, tramways, railways and other works,
erections and conveniences which may have been erected, set
up or placed by the lessee in or upon the leased lands. An
exception is carved out in case of lease being terminated for
default of the lessee wherein, period so to be granted is not less
than three months and not more than six calendar months after
such termination. However, it is subject to the lessee paying the
rents, rates and royalties payable under the Act and the Rules
made thereunder. [Para 31][546-E-G]
4. If this Court in *Goa Foundation-II case intended to
prohibit the mining as well as transportation of the minerals/iron
ore with effect from 16.3.2018 nothing precluded it from doing
so. However, the words used were that the lessees are permitted
to manage their affairs and are permitted to continue mining till
15.3.2018. The only prohibition contained in the said order after
15.3.2018 is for carrying out mining operations. Not only this but
the same Bench which has decided the *Goa Foundation-II case
itself on two occasions has permitted the mineral to be
transported from the jetties. There is no rationale in differentiating
between the iron ore which is either at the jetties or at the
stockyards or pitheads, if the same is mined prior to the date of
the prohibition i.e. 15.3.2018. There is no doubt that the ownership
of the ore is that of the party that has raised the ore. The ore
which has been permitted to be transported is on condition of
payment of royalty. There is no reason why the owners should
not be allowed to transport their own ore. [Para 32][547-B-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
5. Taking overall view of the matter i.e. paragraph 154.6 of
the judgment of this Court in *Goa Foundation-II case; the orders
dated 4.4.2018 and 11.5.2018 passed by the same Bench which
delivered the judgment in *Goa Foundation-II case permitting
the minerals

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.