Goa Mining Ban: Supreme Court Allows Transportation of Mined Ore Before March 2018

The case of Chowgule and Company Private Limited vs. Goa Foundation & Ors. is a landmark ruling in the realm of environmental law and mining regulations. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, addressed the issue of whether iron ore mined before March 15, 2018, could be transported following the cancellation of second renewals of mining leases in Goa.

The ruling provides critical insights into mineral rights, government policies on mining, and the interpretation of court orders regarding environmental conservation.

Background of the Case

• The case stems from rampant illegal mining in Goa, which led to the appointment of a commission under Justice M.B. Shah in 2010.
• The commission found serious violations, leading to the suspension of all mining operations in Goa on September 10, 2012.
• The Goa government attempted to renew mining leases, but the Supreme Court, in the Goa Foundation-I judgment (2014), ruled that all mining leases had expired on November 22, 2007, and fresh leases were required.
• Despite this, the Goa government issued second renewals for 88 mining leases, which were later quashed by the Supreme Court in Goa Foundation-II (2018).
• Mining activities were allowed until March 15, 2018, after which they had to stop unless fresh leases and environmental clearances were obtained.

Key Legal Issues Considered

• Whether the Supreme Court’s order in Goa Foundation-II prohibited only mining after March 15, 2018, or also transportation of ore mined before that date.
• Did the Goa government’s March 21, 2018 order allowing transportation of ore mined before the cutoff date contradict the Supreme Court’s ruling?
• Were the mining leaseholders entitled to ownership rights over ore extracted before March 15, 2018?
• Did Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 permit leaseholders to remove and transport mined ore within six months of lease termination?

Arguments of the Petitioner (Mining Companies)

• The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court’s Goa Foundation-II judgment only stopped mining operations after March 15, 2018, but did not prohibit transporting ore extracted before that date.
• They contended that they had already paid royalty on the extracted ore, making it their property, which they had the right to transport and sell.
• They pointed out that the Goa government had issued a March 21, 2018 order permitting transport, and they had acted in good faith based on this order.
• They cited Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, which allows leaseholders six months to remove ore after lease termination.

Arguments of the Respondents (Goa Foundation & State of Goa)

• Goa Foundation, an environmental NGO, argued that the mining leaseholders had engaged in large-scale illegal mining and should not be allowed to benefit from it.
• They contended that the Supreme Court’s order intended to halt all mining-related activities, including transportation.
• The NGO asserted that any ore mined before the cutoff date but not yet transported should be considered state property, subject to disposal by the government.
• They pointed out that the leaseholders had already extracted 2.2 million tons of ore within the last five weeks of mining operations, suggesting potential last-minute over-extraction.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Court ruled that its Goa Foundation-II judgment prohibited mining after March 15, 2018, but did not explicitly ban transportation of already extracted ore.
• It observed that mining companies had paid royalties on the extracted ore, giving them ownership rights.
• The Court took note of the Goa government’s own stance, which supported transportation of the mined ore.
• The ruling emphasized: “There is no rationale in differentiating between iron ore at jetties, stockyards, or pitheads if it was mined before March 15, 2018.”
• The Court also pointed out that its previous April 4, 2018 and May 11, 2018 orders had already permitted movement of royalty-paid ore.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the mining companies, holding that:

• Mining leaseholders could transport iron ore mined before March 15, 2018, provided it was royalty-paid.
• The Goa government’s March 21, 2018 order allowing transportation was valid.
• All transportation had to be completed within six months from the date of the ruling.
• Mining leaseholders must obtain valid transit permits from the Goa government for transport.

This ruling provides clarity on the scope of mining bans and the rights of mining leaseholders while ensuring that extracted minerals are not wasted.

Petitioner Name: Chowgule and Company Private Limited.
Respondent Name: Goa Foundation & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice S. A. Bobde, Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant.
Place Of Incident: Goa, India.
Judgment Date: 30-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Chowgule and Company vs Goa Foundation & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Corporate Compliance
See all petitions in Company Law
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Environmental Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category