THE GOA FOUNDATION versus M/S SESA STERLITE LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 361 · Decided: 07-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
361
THE GOA FOUNDATION
v.
M/S SESA STERLITE LTD. & ORS.
(SLP (Civil) No. 32138 of 2015)
FEBRUARY 7, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Mines and Minerals:
Mining leases – Renewal of – Propriety – Appointment of
Commission of Inquiry, pursuant to information regarding large-
scale illegal mining in contravention of provisions of relevant
laws – After the report of the Commission, Govt. of Goa by order
dated 10.9.2012 suspended all the mining operations in the State –
Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) kept in abeyance the
environmental clearances in the State of Goa by order dated
14.9.2012 – PIL was filed by Goa Foundation in Supreme Court
seeking directions to Governments of Union and State of Goa to
take steps to terminate the mining leases where mining was carried
out in violation of various statutes – Writ petitions by mining lease-
holders before High Court seeking quashing of the orders dated
10.9.2012 and 14.9.2012, were transferred to Supreme Court –
Supreme Court in *Goa Foundation case held that orders dated
10.9.2012 and 14.9.2012 were not liable to be quashed and would
continue till decisions are taken to grant fresh leases and fresh
environmental clearances for mining projects – Other writ petitions
were filed before High Court by several mining lease-holders for
consideration of their applications for second renewal of mining
leases – High Court held that the decision in *Goa Foundation case
was not an impediment in considering the applications for second
renewal; and that renewal of a lease is also a fresh grant – High
Court directed the State to execute the lease deeds u/s. 8(3) of MMDR
Act in favour of the lease-holders who have already paid the stamp
duty in accordance with Mineral Policy 2013 – Further directed
the State to decide the renewal applications u/s. 8(3), of those who
had not paid the stamp duty – State of Goa thereafter formulated
Goa Grant of Mining Leases Policy 2014 – Central Government
prepared draft of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
[2018] 2  S.C.R. 361
361
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  2 S.C.R.
Act, 2014 (amended Act) and uploaded the same on the website –
The proposed amendment inter alia by introducing s. 10B provided
for competitive bidding – Soon thereafter and till the date of
promulgation of Amendment Ordinance, State of Goa granted
second renewals to several mining lease-holders – Thereafter, the
State requested MoEF to lift the abeyance order (dated 14.9.2012)
on environmental clearances – Consequently MoEF by orders dated
20.3.2015 lifted the abeyance order in respect of 72 cases out of
139 – Held: The decision of State of Goa to grant second renewal
of mining leases was erroneous and contrary to decision in *Goa
Foundation case – State was obliged to grant fresh mining leases as
declaration in *Goa Foundation case was explicitly to grant fresh
leases – Grant of fresh lease is not the same as renewal of lease –
State was not under any constitutional obligation to grant fresh
mining leases through process of competitive bidding or auction –
However, the second renewals were unduly hasty, without taking
into consideration all relevant material and ignoring relevant
material, was not in the interest of mineral development – The
decision of renewal was only to augment the revenues of the State
which is outside the purview of s. 8(3) of 1957 Act – Therefore, the
second renewal granted by the State is liable to be set aside – MoEF
was obliged to grant fresh environmental clearance in respect of
fresh grant of mining leases in accordance with law and decision in
*Goa Foundation case and not by merely lifting the abeyance order
dated 14.9.2012 – High Court proceeded on the erroneous basis
that it could direct the State to grant second renewal notwithstanding
the direction in *Goa Foundation case – Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulations) Act, 1957 – s.8(3) – Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Auction:
Natural Resource allocation – Through auction method –
Whether mandatory – Held: There is no constitutional or otherwise
mandate for allocation of natural resources (other than spectrum)
through auction method – But, auction process should not be given
a go-bye without any justification – The decision to give a go-bye
is judicially reviewable and would attract Art. 14 – Review is
permissible only when the allocation is for commercial pursuits of
profit de hors any social o

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