GOA FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This batch of Writ Petitions and Transferred Cases relate to mining in the State of Goa and as ·issues raised are common to the Writ Petitions and the E Transferred Cases, the cases have been analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

Facts relating to mining in Goa: ,

2Copy pinpoint2. Prior to 19.12.1961 when Goa was a Portuguese F territory, Its Portuguese Government had granted mining concessions in perpetuity to concessionaires. On 19.12.1961, Goa was liberated and became part of the Indian Union and on 01.10.1963, the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'the MMDR Act') was made G applicable to the State of Goa. On 10.03.1975, the Controller of Mining Leases issued a notification calling upon every lessee and sub-lessee to file returns under Rule 5 of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules, 1956 and sent copies of the notification to the concessionaires in Goa. Aggrieved, the H

p. 320 Copy page pinpoint

A concessionaires moved the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench, and by judgment dated 29.⁹.1983, in Vassudeva Madeva Salgaocar vs. Union of India [1985(1) Born. CR 36], the Bombay High Court restrained the Union of India from treating the concessions as mining leases and from enforcing the B notification against the concessionaires.

3Copy pinpoint3. Parliament thereafter passed the Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition and Declaration as Mining Leases) Act, 1987 (for short 'the Abolition Act') which received the assent of the President on 23.05.1987. Section 4 of the C Abolition Act abolished the mining concessions and declared that with effect from the 2oth day of December, 1961, every mining concession will be deemed to be a mining lease granted under the MMDR Act and that the provisions of the MMDR Act will apply to such mining lease. Section 5 of the D Abolition Act further provided that the concession holder shall be deemed to have become a holder of the mining lease under the MMDR Act in relation to the mines in which the concession relates and the period of such lease was to extend upto six months from the date when the Abolition Act received E President's assent, i.e. upto 22.11.1987. On 14.10.1987, sub- rules (8) and (9) were inserted in Rule 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (for short 'the MC Rules') which deal with renewal of mining leases in Goa, Daman and Diu. The Abolition Act was challenged by the lessees before the Bombay F High Court in a writ petition. The High Court passed an interim order permitting the lessees to carry on mining operations and the mining business in the concessions for which renewal applications had been filed unde.r Rule 24A of the MC Rules. Subsequently, the High Court held in its judgment dated G 20.06.1997 that the Abolition Act was valid but Section 22(i)(a) of the Abolition Act would operate prospectively and not retrospectively. The concessionaires filed special leave petition against the judgment dated 20.06.1997 befo~e this Court. On 02.03.1998, this Court passed an inter+m order permitting the H concessionaires to carry on mining operations and mining

p. 321 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.] business in the mining areas for which renewal applications A have been made on the condition that the lessee pays to the Government dead rent from the date of commencement of the Abolition Act. Subsequently, this Court granted leave in the special leave petition and continued the aforesaid interim order. B ·The Justice Shah Commission and its report:

4Copy pinpoint4. As reports were rec~ived from various State Governments of widespread mining of iron ore and manganese ore in contravention of the provisions of the MMDR Act, the Forests (Conservation) Act 1980, the Environment (Protection) c· Act, 1986 and other rules and guidelines issued thereunder, the Central Government appointed the Justice Shah Commission under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 by notification dated 22.11.2010. Paras 2 and 3 of the notification, which are relevant, are extracted hereinbelow: D

"2. The terms of reference of the Commission shall be-

(i) to inquire into and determine the nature and extent of mining and trade and transportation, done illegally or without lawful authority, of iron ore and manganese ore, E and the losses therefrom; and to identify, as far as possible, the persons, firms, companies and others that are engaged in such mining, trade and transportation of iron ore and manganese ore, done illegally or without lawful authority; · F

(ii) to inquire into and determine the extent to which the management, regulatory and monitoring. systems have failed to deter, prevent, detect and punish offences relating to mining, storage, transportation, trade and export of such G ore, done illegally or without lawful authority, and the persons responsible for the same;

(iii) to inquire into the tampering of official records, including records relating to land and boundaries,/to H

p. 322 Copy page pinpoint

A facilitate illegal mining and identify, as far as possible, the persons responsible for such tampering; and

(iv) to inquire into the overall impact of such mining, trade transportation and export done illegally or without lawful B authority, in terms of destruction of forest wealth, damage to the environment, prejudice to the livelihood and other rights of tribal people, forest dwellers and other persons in the mined areas, and the financial losses caused to the Central and State Governments. c 3. The Commission shall also recommend remedial measures to prevent such mining, trade, transportation and export done illegally or without lawful authority."

The Justice Shah Commission visited Goa and issued notices under Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 calling for information from concerned authorities and the lessees and submitted its interim report on 15.3.2012 to the Ministry of Mines, Union of India. On 7.⁹.2012, the Justice Shah Commission Report on Goa was tabled in Parliament along with an Action Taken Report of the Ministry of Mines and on 10.⁹.2012 the State Government of Goa passed an order suspending all mining operations in the State of Goa with effect from 11.⁹.2012 ..

5Copy pinpoint5. Pursuant to this order of the State Government, on F 11.⁹.2012 and 12.⁹.2012 the District Magistrates of the State of Goa banned transportation of iron ore in their respective districts and the Director of Mines and Geology ordered for verification of mineral ore which was already extracted. On 13.⁹.2012, the Director of Mines and Geology, G Government of Goa issued Show Cause Notices to 40 mining leases. On 14.⁹.2012, the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Union of India also directed that all Environmental Clearances granted to mines in the State of Goa be kept in abeyance. H

p. 323 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

6Copy pinpoint6. On the basis of findings in the report of the Justice Shah A Commission on illegal mining in the State of Goa, the Goa Foundation has filed Writ Petition (C) 435 of 2012 as Public Interest Litigation praying for directions to the Union of India and the State of Goa to take steps for termination of the mining leases of lessees involved in mining in violation of the Forest B (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as c the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Goa Foundation has prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to prosecute all those who have committed offences under the different laws and are involved in the pilferage of State revenue through illegal mining activities in the State of Goa including the public servants who have aided and abetted the offences. The Goa Foundation has also sought for appointment of an independent authority with full powers to take control, supervise and regulate mining operations in the State of Goa and to ensure the implementation of the laws. Besides, the aforesaid main reliefs, the Goa Foundation has also prayed for some incidental and consequential reliefs. On 5.10.2012, this Court . issued notice in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 435 of 2012 to the respondents and directed the Central Empowered Committee (for short "CEC") to submit its report on the writ petition and also directed that till further orders, all mining operations in the leases identified in the report of the Justice Shah Commission a.nd transportation of iron ore and manganese ore from those leases, whether lying at the mine-head or stockyards, shall remain suspended, as recommended in the report of the Justice Shah Commission. G

7Copy pinpoint7. Different mining lessees of the State of Goa and the Goa Mining Association also filed Writ Petitions in the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench for a declaration that the report of the Shah Commission is illegal and for quashing the findings in the H

p. 324 Copy page pinpoint

A report of the Justice Shah Commission and also for quashing the order dated 10.⁹.2012 of the Government of Goa suspending mining operations in the State of Goa and the order dated 14.⁹.2012 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, directing that the Environmental B Clearances granted to the mines in the State of Goa be kept in abeyance. These Writ Petitions have been transferred to this Court for hearing along with the hearing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 435 of 2012 filed by the Goa Foundation.

8Copy pinpoint8. The Writ Petitions and the Transferred Cases were C heard during September, October and November, 2013. On 11th November, 2013, an order was passed by this Court directing that the inventory of the excavated mineral ores lying in different mines/stockyards/jetties/ports in the State of Goa made by the Department of Mines and Geology of the D Government of Goa be verified and thereafter the whole of the inventorised mineral ores be sold by e-auction and the sale proceeds (less taxes and royalty) be retained in separate fixed deposits (lease-wise) by the State of Goa till the Court delivers the judgment in these matters on the legality of the leases from E which the mineral ores were extracted. The Court has also directed that this entire process of verification of the inventory, e-auction and deposit of sale proceeds be monitored by a Monitoring Committee appointed by the Court. By the said order dated 11.11.2013, this Court also constituted an Expert F .Committee to conduct a macro EIA Study on what should be the ceiling of annual excavation of iron ore from the State of Goa considering its iron ore resources and its carrying capacity, keeping in mind the principles of sustainable development and inter-generational equity and all other relevant factors. On G 11.11.2013 the case was also reserved for judgment.

Challenge to the Report of the Justice Shah Commission:

9Copy pinpoint9. As we have already noticed, in the cases transferred from the Bombay High Court to this Court, the mining lessees H have prayed for quashing the report of the Justice Shah

p. 325 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

10Copy pinpoint10. Mr. Mohan Prasaran, learned Solicitor General for the Union of India, on the other hand, submitted that as the notification dated 22.11.2010 of the Central Government appointing the Justice Shah Commission under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 would show, reports were received from various State Governments of widespread mining of iron ore and manganese ore in contravention of the MMDR Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or other Rules and Licenses issued thereunder and for this reason, the Central Government appointed the Justice Shah Commission for the purpose of making inquiry into these matters of public importance. He submitted that after the Justice Shah Commission submitted the report pointing out various illegalities, the Union Government has kept the environment clearances in abeyance and it will H

p. 326 Copy page pinpoint

A take legal action on the basis of its own assessment of the facts and not on the basis of the facts as found in the Justice Shah Commission's report. Similarly, Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, the Advocate General appearing for the State of Goa, submitted that after going through the report of the Justice Shah 8 Commission, the State Government has suspended all mining and transportation of ores arid no· 1egal action will be taken against the mining lessees on the basis of the findings in the Justice Shah Commission's report unless due opportunity is given to the mining lessees to place their defence against the c findings of the Justice Shah Commission.

11Copy pinpoint11. We find that Section 88 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 provides that if a person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry, the Commission shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence in his defence and Section 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 provides that every such person will have a right to cross-examine and the right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Commission. As the State Government of Goa has taken a stand before us that no action will be taken against the mining lessees only on the basis of the findings in the report of the Justice Shah Commission without making its own assessment of facts and without first giving the mining lessees the opportunity of hearing and the opportunity to produce evidence in their defence, we are not inclined to quash the report of the Justice Shah Commission on the ground that the provisions of Sections 88 and 8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. At the same time, we cannot also direct prosecution of the mining lessees on the basis of the findings in the report of the Justice Shah Commission, if they have not been given the opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence in their defence and not allowed the right to cross-examine and the right to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Commission as provided in H Sections 88 and 8C respectively of the Commissions of Inquiry

p. 327 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

Act, 1952. We will, however, examine the legal and A environmental issues raised in the report of the Justice Shah Commission and on the basis of our findings on these issues consider granting the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition filed by Goa Foundation and the reliefs prayed for in the writ petitions filed by the mining lessees, which have been transferred to this B Court.

Whether the leases held by the mining lessees have expired:

12Copy pinpoint12. According to tile Justice Shah Commission report, prior -C to 7th January, 1993, sub-rule (4) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules provided that the renewal application of the lessee is required to be disposed of within six months from the date of its receipt and sub rule (5) of Rule 24A provided that if the application is not disposed of within stipulated time, the same shall be o deemed to have been refused. The Justice Shah Commission has found that the applications of several mining leases for renewal were not disposed of within the stipulated time and there was no provision in the MC Rules to condone the delay and, therefore, these leases are in contravention of the MC E Rules and are void and have no effect as provided in Section 19 of the MMDR Act.

13Copy pinpoint13. The CEC in its report has stated that under Section 4 of the Abolition Act. the concessions were abolished from 23rd May, 1987 and treated as deemed leases under the MMDR F Act and the period of deemed leases under Section 5 of the Abolition Act was extended upto six months with effect from the date of assent to the Abolition Act (23rd May, 1987) i.e. upto 22nd November, 1987. The CEC has further stated that by notifications dated 20th November, 1987 and 20th May, 1988, G however, the Government of Goa allowed extension of six mpnths each (totaling one year) for making applications for the first renewal of deemed mining leases and this one year period expired on 22nd November, 1988. The CEC has further stated H

p. 328 Copy page pinpoint

A that as per the information provided to the CEC, out of 595 mining concessions abolished and converted into deemed mining leases under Section 4 of the Abolition Act, as many as 379 deemed mining lease holders have filed applications for the first renewal of the mining leases before 22nd B November, 1988 and 59 such leases have filed applications for the first renewal of the deemed mining leases after 22nd November, 1988, i.e., beyond the time limit permitted under Rule, 24A(8) of the MC Rules.

14Copy pinpoint14. In reply, learned counsel for the lessees and Mr. Arvind C Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Goa, submitted that sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules did not apply to the State of Goa. They submitted that sub-rules (8) and (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules apply specifically to the State of Goa and sub-rule (8) of RulG 24A of the MC Rules D provides that an application for the first renewal of the deemed mining lease referred to in Section 4 of the Abolition Act shall be made to the State Government in Form 'J' before the period of six months of the mining lease as provided in Section 5(1) of the Abolition Act. They submitted that the proviso to sub-rule E (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules conferred power on the State Government to extend time for making such application upto a total period not extending one year. They submitted that, by two notifications, the State Government extended time for a period of one year upto 22.11.1988 and within this period most F of the lessees have applied for the first renewal of the deemed mining lease. Learned counsel for the lessees and learned counsel for the State of Goa submitted that sub-rule (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules makes it clear that if an application for first renewal is made within the time referred to in sub-rule (8) G of Rule 24A of the MC Rules or within the time allowed by the State Government under the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes orders thereon. H

p. 329 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

15Copy pinpoint15. For easy reference, Chapter II containing Sections 4 A and 5 of the Abolition Act is extracted hereinbelow:

"CHAPTER II

ABOLITION OF MINING CONCESSIONS AND DECLARATION AS MINING LEASES UNDER THE B MINES AND MINERALS ACT

4. (1) Every mining concession specified in the First Schedule shall, on and from the appointed day, be deemed to have been abolished, and shall, with effect from C that day, be deemed to be a minjng lease granted under the Mines anctMinerals Act, and the provisions of that Act shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act, apply to such mining lease. D (2) Every mining concession specified in the Second Schedule shall, on and from the day next after the date of grant of .the said concession and specified in the corresponding entry in the eighth column of the said Schedule, be deemed to have been abolished; and shall, · with effect from that day, be deemed to be a mining lease granted under the Mines and Minerals Act, and the provisions of that Act shall, save as otherwise provided in this Act, apply to such mining lease.

(3) If, after the date of assent, the Central Government is satisfied,. whether from any information received by it or otherwise, that there has been· any error, omission or misdescription in relation to the particulars of any mining concession or the name and residence of any concession holder specified in the First or the Second Schedule, it may, by notification, correct such error, omission or misdescription, and on the issue of such notification, the First or the Second Schedule, as the case may be, shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. H

p. 330 Copy page pinpoint

A 5. (1) Where a mining concessio11 has been deemed to be a mining lease under section 4, the concession holder shall, on and from the day mentioned in that section, be deemed to have become the holder of such mining lease under the M~es and Minerals Act in relation to the mine B to which the mining concession relates, subject to the condition that U1e period of such lease shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that Act, extend up to a period of six months from the date of assent..

·(2) On the expiry of the period of any mining lease under e sub-section (1 ), it may, if so desired by the holder of such lease and on an application being made by him in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act and the rules made thereunder, be renewed on such terms and conditions, and up to the maximum period for D which, such lease can be renewed under the provisions of that Act and the rules made thereunder." ·

16Copy pinpoint16. For easy reference, Rule 24A of the MC Rules is also extracted hereinbelow: E "24A. Renewal of mining lease. - (1) An application for the renewal of a mining lease shall be made to the _State Government in Form J, at least twelve months before the date on which the lease is due to expire, through such officer or authority as the State Government may specify F in this behalf.

(2) The renewal or renewals of a mining lease granted in respect of a mineral specified in Part 'A' and Part 'B' of the First Schedule to the Act may be granted by the State G Government with the previous approval of the Central Government.; (3) The renewal or renewals of a mining l~ase granted in respect of a mineral not spedfied in Part 'A' and Part 'B' H

p. 331 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.] o.f the First Schedule to the Act may be granted by the A State_ Government.;

Provided that before granting approval for second or subsequent renewal of a mining lease, the State Government shall seek a report from the Controller B General, lndran Bureau of Mines, as to whether it would be in the interest of mineral development to grant the renewal of the mining lease.

Provided further that in case a report is not received from Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines in a period of C three months of receipt of the communication from the State Government, it would be deemed that the Indian Bureau of Mines has no adverse comments to offer regarding the grant of the renewal of mining lease. D (4) An application for the renewal of a mining lease shall be disposed of within a period of six ·months from the date of its receipt. (Omitted)

(5) If an· application is not disposed of within the period specifieei l!1 sub-rule (4) it shall be deemed to have been refused. (Omitted)

(6) If an ~pplication for the renewal of a mining lease made within the time referred to in sub-rule (1) is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of the lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes order thereon. (7) Omitted. G (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (6), an application for the first renewal of a mining lease, so declared under the provisions of section 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concession (Abolition and Declaration as Mining Lease ) Act,1987, shall be made H

p. 332 Copy page pinpoint

A to the State Government in Form J before the expiry of the period of mining lease in terms of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the said Act, through such office or authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf:

Provided that the State Government may, for reasons to B be recorded in writing and subject to such conditions as it may think fit, allow extension of time for making of such . application up to a total period not exceeding one year.

(9) If an application for first renewal made within the time c referred to in sub-rule (8) or within the time allowed by the State Government under the proviso to sub-rule (8), the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes orders thereon. D (10) The State Government may condone delay in an application for renewal of mining lease made after the time limit prescribed in sub-rule (1) provided the application has been made before the expiry of the lease."

17Copy pinpoint17. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules has been inserted by G.S.R. 855(E), dated 14th October, 1987 and this sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (6), an application for the first renewal of a deemed mining F lease, referred to in Section 4 of the Abolition Act, shall be made to the State Government in Form J before the expiry of the six months period of deemed mining lease as provided in Section 5 (1) of the Abolition Act. The proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, however, empowers the State G Government to extend the time for making such application upto a total· period not extending one year. In exercise of these powers in the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, the State Government of Goa has, in fact, extended time for making applications for first renewal upto 22.11.1988, by H two notifications dated 20.11.1987 and 20.05.1988. Sub-rule

p. 333 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.] (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, which was also inserted by A G.S.R. 855(E}, dated 14th October, 1987, reads as follows:

"In an application for first renewal made within the time referred to in sub-rule (8) or within the time allowed by the State Government under the proviso to sub-rule (8), the 8 period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a period of .one year from the date of expiry of lease or date of receipt of application, whichever is later, provided that the period of deemed extension of lease shall end with the date of receipt of the orders of the State C Government thereon, if such orders are made earlier."

Sub-rule (9) was substituted by G.S.R. 724(E) dated 27th September, 19S4 by the existing sub-rule (9) (extracted above) to provide that if an application for first renewal is made within the time referred to in sub-rule (8) or within the time allowed by the State Government under the proviso to sub-rule (8), the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes orders thereon. In our considered opinion, the intention of rule-making authorities is very clear from sub-rule (9) as was originally inserted by G.S.R. 855(E), dated 14th October, 1987 and sub- rule (9) as was substituted by G.S.R. 724(E), dated 27th September, 1994, that until orders were passed by the State Government on an application for first renewal of a lease filed by a lessee within the time allowed, the lease was deemed to have been extended. ·

18Copy pinpoint18. The lessees have contended that they had filed their applications by 22.11.1988, i.e. the date up to which the State Government had allowed time under the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules. The State Government has also taken the stand that most of the applications for first renewal were filed within the time allowed by the State Government and this stand is also supported by the facts found by the CEC. The result is that most of the mining leases in which the State Government has not passed orders are deemed tohave been H

p. 334 Copy page pinpoint

A extended under sub-rule (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules. Hence, the finding in the Justice Shah Commission report that the applications for renewal were not disposed of within the stipulated time and the leases are in contravention of the MC Rules is, thus, not correct. This opinion of the Justice Shah s Commission, as we have noticed, was based on sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, which were applicable generally to an application for renewal of mining leases, stood excluded to the extent specific provisions have been subsequently made by the rule-making authorities in sub-rules c (8) and (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules in respect of the deemed leases in Goa.

19Copy pinpoint19. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Goa Foundation, however, submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act prior to its amendment provided that a D mining lease may be renewed for only ten years and, therefore, if the deemed mining leases of the lessees expired on 22.11.1987, even if the lease was renewed on the application of first renewal made by the lessees in Goa, the period of lease under the first renewal would expire on 21.11.1997 and after E 21.11.1997, there can be no deemed extension. Alternatively, he submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act as amended by Act 25 of 1994 provided that the mining lease may be renewed for a maximum period not exceeding twenty years. He submitted that as the deemed mining leases expired F on 22.11.1987, the lessees would be entitled to a renewal for a maximum period of twenty years upto 21.11.2007 and after 21.11.2007, the lessees would not be entitled to any renewal and hence the lessees were not entitled to operate the lease beyond 21.11.2007. G

20Copy pinpoint20. Learned counsel for the lessees, on the other hand, submitted that sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act makes it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, the State Government can authorise renewal of a mining lease in respect H

p. 335 Copy page pinpoint

p. 336 Copy page pinpoint

A period if it was in the interest of mineral development.

21Copy pinpoint21. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the State of Goa, submitted that the then State Government of Goa allowed the working of the mines from 2007 till 2012 based on deemed extension status but it has been decided by the State 8 Government now in the Goa Mining Policy of 2013 that no mine can be allowed on deemed extension basis. The clear stand of the State Government of Goa in the resume of arguments filed by the learned Advocate General Mr. Nadkarni is that the deemed extension status would not mean that a mine can be C allowed to run indefinitely without a decision on the renewal application.

22Copy pinpoint22. Section 8 of the MMDR Act is extracted hereinbelow:

0 "8. Periods for which mining leases may be granted or renewed

(1) The maximum period for which a mining lease may be granted shall not exceed thirty years:

E Provided that the minimu.m period for which any such mining lease may be granted shall not be less than twenty years;

(2) A mining lease may be renewed for a period not exceeding twenty years]: F (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), if the State Government is of opinion that in the interests of mineral development it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded, authorise the renewal of a G mining lease in respect of minerals not specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule for a further period or periods not exceeding twenty years in each case.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(2) H and sub-section (3), no mining lease granted in respect

p. 337 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

of mineral specified in Part A or Part B of the First A Schedule shall be renewed except with the previous approval of the Central Government."

23Copy pinpoint23. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, which provides the maximum and minimum periods for which a 8 mining lease may be granted will not apply to deemed mining leases in Goa because sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Abolition Act provides that the period of such deemed mining leases will extend upto six months from the date of assent notwithstanding anything contained in the MMDR Act. In other words, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of C 'Section 8 of the MMDR Act, the period of a deemed mining lease in Goa was to expire on 22.11.1987 (six months from the date of assent). Under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, a mining lease may be renewed for a period not exceeding twenty years. Sub-section (3) of Section 8, however, D provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), if the State Government is of the opinion that in the interest of mineral development, it is necessary so to do, it may for reasons to be recorded, authorise the renewal of a mining lease in respect of minerals not specified in Part A and Part B of the E First Schedule for a further period or periods not exceeding twenty years in each case. Thus, renewal beyond the first renewal for a period of twenty years is conditional upon the State Government forming an opinion that in the interest of mineral development, it is necessary to do so and also F conditional upon the State Government recording reasons for such renewal of a mining lease in respect of iron ore which is not specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule. In Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. v. Union of India &Anr. (supra), this Court has held that the language of sub-section (3) of G Section 8 is quite clear that ordinarily a lease is not to be granted beyond the time specified in sub-section (2) and only if the Government is of the view that it would be in the interest of mineral development, it is empowered to renew lease of a lessee for a further period after recording sound reasons for H

p. 338 Copy page pinpoint

A doing so. This Court has further held in the aforesaid case that this measure has been incorporated in the legislative scheme as a safeguard against arbitrariness and the letter and spirit of the law must be adhered to in a strict manner.

24Copy pinpoint24. The MC Rules have been made under Section 13 of 8 the MMDR Act by the Central Government and obviously could not have been made in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules provides that if an application for the renewal of a mining lease made within the time referred to in sub-rule (1) is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of the lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes order thereon. This sub-rule cannot apply to a renewal under sub- section (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act because the renewal under this provision cannot be made without express orders of the State Government recording reasons for renewal in the interest of mineral development. In other words, so long as there is a right of renewal in the lessee which in the case of a mining lease is for a maximum period of twenty years, the provision regarding deemed extension of a lease can operate, but if the right of renewal of a mining lease is dependent upon the State Government forming an opinion that in the interest of mineral development it is necessary to do so and the State Government recording reasons therefor, a provision regarding deemed extension till orders are passed by the State Government on the application of renewal cannot apply. We are, therefore, of the opinion that sub-rule (6) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules will apply to a case of first renewal under sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act other than a case covered under sub-rule G (0) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules, but will not apply to renewal under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act. In our view, the deemed mining leases of the lessees in Goa expired on 22.11.1987 under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Abolition Act and the maximum of 20 years renewal period of H the deemed mining leases in Goa as provided in sub-section

p. 339 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.] (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act read with sub-rules (8) and A (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules expired on 22.11.2007.

Whether dump can be kept beyond the lease area:

25Copy pinpoint25. The report of the Justice Shah Commission states that about 2796.24 ha of area have been found to be under encroachment by the mining lessees out of which about 578.42 ha have been found to have been illegally used for extraction/ removal of iron ore. The CEC in its report has stated that. the CEC visited some of the areas stated to be under encroachments and a number of lease holders have filed representations against the findings of the Shah Commission stating that they are not involved in any encroachment. According to the Goa Foundation, this was a gross illegality committed by the mining lessees. D · 26. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, the Amicus Curiae, referred to Section 9 of the MMDR Act to submit that any removal of minerals from the leased area can be made by holder of a mining lease only on payment of royalty. He submitted that the waste material and overburden, therefore, cannot be dumped outside the leased area without payment of royalty. He referred to paragraph 48 · of the judgment of this Court in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya and Ors. v. State of Kamataka and Ors. [(2013) 8 SCC 154] in which this Court has observed that dumping of mining waste (overburden dumps) also constitutes mining operations within the meaning of Section 3(d) of the MMDR Act and, therefore, the use of forest land for such activity would require clearances under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. He submitted that in the event dumping of mining waste outside the leased area is to be done, it can only be done after clearance is obtained under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. G

27Copy pinpoint27. The learned counsel appearing for the mining lessees submitted that the lessees have actually used areas outside the mining lease which are also owned mostly by the lessees for clearing the dump and this was permissible under the Mineral H

p. 340 Copy page pinpoint

A Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 (for short 'MCD Rules') and the MC Rules. In particular, they referred to Rule 16 of the MCD Rules, which provides for separate stacking of non-saleable minerals, such as over burden and waste material obtained during mining operation, on the ground s earmarked for the purpose, which should be away from the working pit. They also referred to Rule 64 C of the MC Rules which provides that on removal of tailings or rejects from the leased area for dumping outside leased area, such tailings or rejects are not liable for payment of royalty. The State c Government has supported this stand of the mining lessees that dumping of the overburden and mining waste outside the lease area was permissible under the MC Rules and MCD Rules.

28Copy pinpoint28. Sections 4(1) and 9(2) of the MMDR Act, Rule 64C of the MC Rules and Rule 16 of the MCD Rules are extracted below:

"4. Prospecting or mining operations to be under licence or lease.-(1) No person shall undertake any reconnaissance, prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a reconnaissance permit or of a prospecting licence or, as the case may be, a mining lease, granted under this Act and the rules made thereunder:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any prospecting or mining operations undertaken in any area in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or mining lease granted before the commencement of this Act which is in force at such commencement. G Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research H of the Department of Atomic Energy of the Central

p. 341 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.] Government, the Directorates of Mining and Geology of any A State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. B Provided also that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any mining lease (whether called mining lease, mining concession or by any other name) in force immediately before the commencement of this Act in the Union territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. c "

"9. Royalties in respect of mining leases.- .. (1) ............................................................... . D (2) The holder of a mining lease granted on or after the commencement of this Act shall pay royalty in respect of any (mineral removed or consumed by his agent, manager, employee, contractor of sub-lessee) from the leased area at the rate for the time being specified in the Second E Schedule in respect of that mineral.

"64C. Royalty on tailings o~ rejects.-On removal of tailings or rejects from the leased area for dumping and not for sale or consumption, outside leased area such tailings or rejects shall not be liable for payment of royalty:

Provided that in case so dumped tailings or rejects are used for sale or consumption on any later date after the date of such dumping, then, such tailings or rejects shall be liable for payment of royalty."

"16. Separate stacking of non-salable minerals.-(1) The overburden and waste material obtained during mining H

p. 342 Copy page pinpoint

A operations shall not be allowed to be mixed with non- salable or sub-grade minerals/ores. They shall be dumped and stacked separately on the ground earmarked for the purpose.

(2) The ground selected for dumping of overburden, waste B material, the sub-grade or non-salable ores/minerals shall be away from working pit. It shall be proved for absence or presence of underlying mineral deposits before it is brought into use for dumping.

c (3) Before starting mining operations, the ultimate size of the pit shall be determined and the dumping ground shall be so selected that the dumping is not carried out within the limits of the ultimate size of the pit except in cases wher~ concurrent backfilling is proposed." D

29Copy pinpoint29. Under Section 4 of the MMDR ·Act, a person who holds a mining lease granted under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder is entitled to carry on mining operations in accordance with the terms of the lease in the leased area and may carry on all other activities connected with mining within the leased area. Rule 31 of the MC Rules prescribes that the lease deed will be in Form K or in a form near thereto. Part I of Form K delineates the area of the lease and Part II of Form K authorizes the activities that can be done by the lessee in the leased area. Thus, a holder of a mining lease does not have any right to dump any reject, tailings or waste in any area outside the leased area of the mining lease on the strength of a mining l~ase granted under the MMDR Act and the Rules made thereunder. Such area outside the leased area of the mining lease may belong to the State or may belong to any ' G private person, but if the mining lease does not confer any right whatsoever on the holder of a mining lease to dump any mining waste outside the leased area, he will have no legal right whatsoever to remove his dump, overburden, tailings or rejects and keep the same in such area outside the leased area. In H other words, dumping of any waste materials, tailings and

p. 343 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.] rejects outside the leased area would be without a valid A authorization under the lease-deed.

30Copy pinpoint30. Moreover, Section 9(2) of the Mtv1DR Act makes the holder of a mining lease granted on or after the commencement :1f the Act liable to pay royalty in· respect of any mineral removed 8 or consumed by him or by his agent, manager, employee, contractor or sub-lessee from the leased area. Thus, the moment the mineral is removed or consumed from the leased area, the holder of a mining lease has to pay royalty. By virtue of Section 9 of the MMDR Act, tailings and rejects excavated during mining operations being minerals will also be exigible to royalty the moment they are removed from the leased area.

31Copy pinpoint31. Rule 64C of the MC Rules states that on removal of tailings or rejects from the leased area for dumping and not for sale or consumption, outside leased area such tailings or rejects shall not be liable for payment of royalty. Rule 64C of the'MC Rules, therefore, exempts the removal of tailings or rejects from the leased area for the purpose of dumping and not for the purpose of sale or consumption from the levy of royalty. Rule 64C of the MC Rules does not authorise dumping of tailings or rejects in any area outside the leased area. This Court has held in The Central Bank of India & Ors. v. Their Workmen, etc. [AIR 1960 SC 12] that 'if a rule goes beyond what the section contemplates, the rule must yield to the statute'. In our view, if Rule 64C of the MC Rules suggests that tailings or rejects can be dumped outside the leased area, it must give way to Section 4 of the MMDR Act, which does not authorise dumping of minerals outside t,he leased area and must give way to Section 9 of the MMDR Act which does not authori!?e . removal of minerals outside the .leased area with.ou't payment qf royalty. We, therefore, hold that d.ump c~nriot be kept by the lesse'es beyond.the l~ased area. ·

32Copy pinpoint32. Rule 16 of the MCD Rules provides that the overburden and waste material obtained during mining operations shall be dumped and stacked separately on the ground earmarked for H

p. 344 Copy page pinpoint

A the purpose and the ground selected for dumping of overburden, waste material shall be away from working pit. There is nothing in sub-rules (1 ), (2) and (3) of Rule 16 of the MCD Rules, which provides that such overburden or waste material obtained from mining operations shall be kept 'outside B the leased area'. On the other hand, clause (7) of Part II of Form-K provides as follows:

"Liberty and power to enter upon and use a sufficient part of the surface of the said lands for the purpose of stacking, heaping, storing or depositing therein any produce of the c mines. o"r works carried on and any tools, equipment, earth and materials and substances dug or raised under the liberties and powers mentioned in this part."

The expression 'said lands' in clause (7) of Part II of Form- D K quoted above refers to the area of the lease in Part I of Form K and, therefore, is confined to the leased area. Rule 16 of the MCD Rules, therefore, cannot be read to permit dumping of overburden and waste materials obtained from mining operations outside the leased area. E

33Copy pinpoint33. Learned counsel for the lessees, however, submitted that many of these areas in which they have dumped the overburdens, tailings and rejects are lands owned by them and by virtue of their ownership right they could dump the mining waste on their own lands. This contention of learned counsel appearing for the lessees loses sight of the fact that most of these lands are located in forest areas where non-forest activity, such as mining, is prohibited under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 without the prior permission of the Central Government. Moreover, the notification issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 requiring prior environmental clearance covers the activity of mining. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 empowers the Central Government to impose prohibition or restrictions on the location of an industry or the carrying on of processes and operations in an area for the purpose of protecting the environment.

p. 345 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

Inasmuch as the activity of dumping mineral wastes will pollute the environment, it will come within the meaning of activity of mining inc1u9ed in the Schedule to the notification issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules,

1986. Thus, for dumP,ing of mining' waste on a private land, a prior clearance of the Central Government under the notification issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 would be necessary. We, therefore, do not find any ryierit in the contention of learned counsel for the lessees that they can dump mining waste outside the ~ased area. c Within what distance from the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, is mining not permissible in the State of Goa:

34Copy pinpoint34. The Justice Shah Commission has stated in its report that the National Board for Wild Life (NBWL) adopted "The Wild Life Conservation Strategy-2002" and took a decision in ·its meeting held on 21.¹.2002 under the Chairmanship of Prime Minister to notify the areas within 1O kms. from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries as eco-fragile zones under section 3(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act and Rule 5, Sub-rule (1 )(viii) & (x) of the Environment (Protection) Rules and . this decision has been communicated on 5.2.2002 to the Chief Wild Life Warden, Government of Goa and the State Government has been requested to list out such areas and furnish a detailed proposal for their notification as eco- sensitive areas under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Justice Shah Commission has found that this has not been· done till date but the Government of Goa has allowed mines to operate. In this context, the Justice Shah Commission Report G has referred to the order dated 04.12.2006 of this Court in Writ Petition No.460/2004 (Goa Foundation v. Union of India) by which this Court had directed the MoEF to refer to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life, under Sections 5B and 5C (2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the cases in H

p. 346 Copy page pinpoint

A which environmental clearance has already been granted where activities are within 10 kms. zone. According to the report of the Justice Shah Commission, in spite of the clear provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the EIA Notifications, conferring the jurisdiction, power and B authority on the Central Government (MoEF) to grant or r~fuse prior environment clearance for any iron ore mining activity within 10 kms. of National Parks, Sanctuaries and Protected Areas and despite provisions in Section 5C(2)(b) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 putting a restriction on mining c activities inside National Parks, Sanctuaries and other Protected and eco-sensitive Areas, mining activities have been permitted within 10 kms. and inside the National Parks, Sanctuaries and Protected Areas. The report of the Justice Shah Commission further states that out of the environmental clearances, the clearances with regard to 74 mining leases 0 should have been placed before the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife in accordance with the order dated 04.12.2006 of this Court. The report of the Justice Shah Commission further states that there has been a total failure E on the part of the MoEF in not considering this issue While granting the environmental clearances.

35Copy pinpoint35. The Justice Shah Commission in its report has further stated that in the order dated 04.⁸.2006 of this Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., this Court F has taken a view that 1 km. from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries would be a safety zone, subject to the orders that may be made in IA No.1000 regarding Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary and the State will not grant any Temporary Working Permit (TWP) in these safety zones comprising 1 km. G from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries and yet some of the mines within 1 km. from the boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries have been allowed in the State of Goa.

36Copy pinpoint36. The CEC in its report is of the view that had the MoEF implemented this Court's orders dated 14.02.2000 and H

GOA FOUNDATION v. UNION OF INDIA 34 7 [A.K. PATNAIK, J.] 04.12.2006, the unregulated and environmentally unsustainable manner in which mining has taken place in Goa would have been avoided. The CEC has suggested that all environmental clearances granted for mining leases located upto a distance of 10 kms. from the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife . Sanctuaries should be directed to be kept in abeyance and the environmental clearances should be directed to be considered by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife in accordance with this Court's order datid 04.12.2006 and the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Regional Office, MoEF, Bangalore, should be directed to verify, after c ' examining the EIA/EMP reports and other relevant details, whether the mining operations will have adverse impact on the flora, fauna and wildlife habitat and whether the distance of the National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries and that the status of the 'forest' have been correctly stated in the EC/application for 0 taking a decision regarding EC's and only after considering the recommendations of the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife and the report of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Central) and other relevant information/ details, this Court may take a decision. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, E learned counsel appearing for the Goa Foundation, submitted that there should be no mining activity within any National Parks/ Wildlife Sanctuaries or within 10 kms. from the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries so that the flora, fauna and wildlife habitat of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries are protected. F

37Copy pinpoint37. Learned counsel for the lessees, on the other hand, stated that so far as the State of Goa is concerned, on the one side, there is a coastal regulation zone in which mining is not permitted and, on the other side, are the National Parks and G Wildlife Sanctuaries in which again mining is not permitted and as a consequence a very small strip of land is available for mining. They submitted that there is no basis for presuming that an area outside the limits of a National Park or a Wildlife Sanctuary is required to be maintained as a buffer zone. They H

p. 348 Copy page pinpoint

A submitted that by the order dated 04.12 .2006 of this Court passed in Writ Petition (C) No.460 of 2004, this Court did not finally fix the buffer zone of 10 kms. from the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries, but granted a last opportunity to the States to submit their recommendations for B eco-sensitive zone and that the issue is still pending in I .A. No.1000 in Writ Petition 202 of 1995 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumu/pad v. Union of India & Ors. They further argued that by the order dated 04.⁸.2006, this Court had only directed that no mining would be permitted by Temporary Working Permits c within 1 km. from the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries and by the said order, absolute ban has not been imposed against mining even within 1 km. from the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. They argued that for declaration of eco-sensitive zone, a notification under Section 3 of the Environment (Protect) Act, 1986 is mandatory and till D date no such notification has been issued for the State of Goa delineating any eco-sensitive zone and in the absence of such a notification mining activities cannot be prohibited beyond the boundaries of a national park/wildlife sanctuary.

38Copy pinpoint38. Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Goa, submitted that presently the State of Goa is not permitting mining inside any National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary. He submitted that each of the seven wildlife sanctuaries in the State of Goa have got revenue villages and local habitation of people inside the sanctuaries and ~efore notifying the buffer zone around a wildlife sanctuary the consequences of the restrictions of the buffer zone on the local population and on the local development have to be weighed. He submitted that the State Government is of the considered opinion that while evolving a conservation strategy, the following peculiar local constraints in the State of Goa have to be considered:

(i) The State of Goa is the 3rd smallest State in the Union; with a total geographical are of only 3,702 square metres; H

p. 349 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

and out of that, an area of 1,44D square metres is under A 'Forest' (protected/reserved/private) which is almost about 38% of the total geographical area;

(ii) Out of the said area under 'Forest' nearly 62% i.e. 75.35 square metres has been declared as 'National B Park', and/or 'Wildlife Sanctuary';

(iii) An area of approximately or more than 70 square kilometres falls under the 'Coastal Regulation Zone' (CRZ). Indeed, the CRZ runs into 106 kms., of the Coastal Belt of the State of Goa; C

(iv) In fact, the total land mass available to the State of Goa, free from various restrictions, would further be reduced by 196.80 square kilometers, i.e. up to 5.32%, on account of Rivers, Lakes and other Water Bodies; o (v) Indeed, approximately 40% of the land is under agriculture which the Government has decided not to be diverted under any circumstances;

(vi) Further, the State Government has also directed that E no 'Forest Land' is to be diverted for any mining purpose.

He submitted that considering all these constraints, the State Government has recommended that an area up £o 1 km. from the boundaries of National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries F should be treated as safety zones but even in these safety zones mining activity should be prohibited in a phased manner in 5 to 10 years.

39Copy pinpoint39. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General, submitted that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and G Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of Goa, vide his letter dated 02.05.2013 has submitted six proposals for declaration of eco~ sensitive zones around six protected areas in the State of Goa (National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries) and the proposals were referred to a Committee constituted under the Chairmanship H

p. 350 Copy page pinpoint

A of Dr. Rajesh Gopal, Additional Director General of Forests and Member Secretary of National Tiger Conservation Authority- Chairman, with the following Terms of Reference:

(i) The Committee will undertake a site specific site survey of all six protected areas in Goa, with B reference to studying the topography and report on the existing natural boundaries around that is outside each protected area. Such boundaries could include inter alia rivers, hills etc.

c (ii) The Committee will draw up a definition of what could constitute a credible natural boundary, always keeping in mind that the object is to protect the flora, fauna and biodiversity in the PA from biotic pressure. D (iii) The Committee will ·slibmit its views on whether any of the natural boundaries of the PAs in Goa could be an effective boundary of a robust Eco-Sensitive Zone around the P.A. E He submitted that the Committee has submitted its report on 18.10.2013 and the report has ·been considered by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and by office memorandum dated 24.10.2013, the Ministry of Environment and Forests has not accepted the recommendation of the F Government of Goa regarding buffer zone and instead accepted the recommendation of the Committee to define the eco-sensitive zones in site specific manner subject to the relevant Court orders on the subject and that a draft notification dewning eco-sensitive zones around each of the six protected G _areas would. be issued for stakeholder consultations.

40Copy pinpoint40. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and we find that presently no mining operations are being carried on inside any National Park or H Wildlife Sanctuary, and the State of Goa has taken a stand

p. 351 Copy page pinpoint

[A.K. PATNAIK, J.] before us that it will not permit any mining operations inside any A National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary. Hence, the only question that we have to decide is whether mining could have been permitted or could be permitted within a certain distance from the boundaries of the National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary in the State of Goa. B

41Copy pinpoint41. This Court in exercise of its power under Article 32 of the Constitution can direct the State to prohibit mining activities . in an area adjacent to a National Park or a Wildlife Sanctuary for the purpose of protecting the flora, fauna and wildlife habitat of the National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary because· these constitute part of the natural environment necessary for healthy life of persons living in the State of Goa. The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution is a guarantee against the State and for enforcing this fundamental right of persons the State, which alone has a right to grant mining leases of the mines located inside the State, can be directed by the Court by an appropriate writ or direction not to grant mining leases or not to allow mining that will be violative under Article 21 of the Constitution. In Re: Construction of Park at NO/DA near Okhla Bird Sanctuary {(2011) 1 SCC 744] a three-Judge Bench E (Forest Bench) of this Court has observed:

" ...... Environment is one of the facets of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Environment is, therefore, a matter directly under the F Constitution and if the Court perceives any' project or activity as harmful or injurious to the environment it would feel obliged to step in ..... "

Thus, the submissions of learned counsel for the lessees that until a notification is issued under the Environment G (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules made thereunder prohibiting mining activities in an area outside the bou.ndaries of a National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary, no miniJ:lg can be prohibited by this Court is misconceived. H

p. 352 Copy page pinpoint

42Copy pinpoint42. We may now examine whether this Court has by the orders passed on 04.⁸.2006 and 04.12.2006, prohibited mining activities around National Parks or Wildlife Sanctuaries. When we read the order of this Court passed on 04.⁸.2006 in T.N. Godavarman Thirumu/pad v. Union of India & Ors., B we find that the Court while considering the question of grant of Temporary Working Permits for mining activities in National Parks, Sanctuaries and forest areas, directed that Temporary Working Permits shall be granted only ~here the conditions stipulated in the said order are satisfied. Condition Nos. (ii) and c (iii) stipulated in the order dated 04.⁸.2006 are extracted hereinbelow:

"(ii) The mine is not located inside any National Park/ Sanctuary notified under Section 18, 26-A or 35 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; D (iii) The grant of the T.W.P. would not result in any mining activity within the safety zone around such areas referred to in (ii) above, (as an interim measure, one kilometre safety zone shall be maintained subject to the orders that E may be made in I.A. No.1000 regarding Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary);'"

It would, thus, be clear that this Court was of the opinion that grant of Temporary Working Permits should not result in any mining activities within the sa.fety zones around a National F Park or Wildlife Sanctuary and as an interim measure, one kilometer safety zone was to be maintained subject to the orders that may be made in I.A. No.1000 in Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary. This order dated 04.⁸.2006 has not been varied subsequently nor any orders made in I.A.No. 1000 regarding G Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary saying that Temporary Working Permits can be granted within one kilometer safety zone beyond the boundaries of a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary. The result is that the order passed by this Court saying that there will be no mining activity within one kilometer safety zone H around National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary has to be enforced

p. 353 Copy page pinpoint