A Request To Extend The Lease Of Goa's Mining Companies Was Filed By SC

CASE NAME AND CORAM

• CASE NAME: Vedanta Limited V. Director of Mines and Geology; Geetabala M. N. Parulekar V. Director of Mines And Geology
• CORAM: Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna

KEY-TAKEAWAYS

• Following the rejection of the request for reconsideration, evidence that the appeals and petitions filed by Vedanta and Parulekar were also lost.
• Supreme Court’s decision to extend the tenants' leases of the Goa mining company was declared illegal in 2018.
• The Goa government agreed with this opinion, but stated that the mining lease cannot be extended.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• The largest mining company operating in Goa, Vedanta Ltd. protested against the Goa government's decision to reject a request to amend the mining lease to extend the period from 1 to 2037 for a period of 50 years.
• Recalling Section 8 (A) (3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 (MMDR Act) ​Vedanta argued in the Supreme Court that under the Minerals and Mines Act, as amended (2015), all operating leases pending amendment redeemed to have been granted for a period of 50 years.
• In the case of Goa, he argued, it had been 50 years since the mining leases of Goa were converted from the concessions granted by the Portuguese under the Mines and Minerals Act.
• Goa miners argued that this was because their mines were "active" when the amendments took effect in 2015, therefore they were eligible for a lease extension under the Act as amended.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE

• The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a series of lawsuits filed by Goa miners seeking an extension of their lease until 2037.
• The suits were filed by Vedanta Ltd. and other miners after the Goa government arrested them, and abandoning them, stating that the authorities were bound by a Supreme Court ruling expressly prohibiting such an extension.
• Complaints were dismissed by the court of Justice D. Y. Chandrachuda, Vikram Natha and Khima Kohli.
• The Goa miners argued that because their mines were “active” when the amendment came into effect in 2015, they were eligible to benefit under the amendment.
• Upon rejection of the petitions for revision, evidence that the appeals and petitions filed by Vedanta and Parulekar were also be lost.
• With that development, the private mining industry and the corridors that have dominated the sector for over 50 years have come to an incomprehensible end,” said Claude Alvarez, director of the Goa Foundation, an environmental NGO whose petition led to the closure of mining in Goa, and who was the defendant in the current case.

WHAT THE APEX COURT HAD TO ADD

• A Supreme Court ruling declaring the lease extension of Goa's mining enterprises illegal was passed in 2018.
• The Goa government agreed with their position but declared inability to extend it. The lease was due to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Goa dated February 7, 2018 with lease extension and renewal of environmental permits and contracts.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the mining leases in Goa, originally granted as a concession by the Portuguese, expired in November 2007 and a subsequent extension by the state government in 2014-15 was illegal.
• The Goa government confirmed Vedanta in its application to the Supreme Court, stating that it had previously been unanimously signed. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court also dismissed a suit from the Goa government to review the 2018 SC ruling that annulled all 88 mining contracts.
• It was stated by Vedanta and others in the Supreme Court that pursuant to the Amended Mines and Minerals Act (2015), all leases in force prior to the amendment should be considered granted for a period of fifty years in the case of Goa.

Do share your views in the comments section.