Ninad Laud is a lawyer practicing in the Supreme Court and had represented some of the mining companies in the matter
Explain to us the controversy in challenge before the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court had invalidated the second renewals of 88 iron ore leases in Goa by its judgment of 07.02.18. It had also invalidated the environmental clearances of these leases.
Yet, presumably to soften the blow in a manner of speaking, the SC had allowed these lessees to continue “mining operations” for a period of 5 weeks, after its judgment.
The moot question was whether fresh excavation could have been done in these 5 weeks and also whether this ore ought to have been transported and exported before the 5 weeks ended.
The High Court had interpreted the words “mining operations” not to include fresh excavation and the 5 week period to be a deadline also for transportation of the ore already mined. The High Court had also confiscated all the ore lying across Goa.
What was the line of arguments that you pursued to launch your legal challenge?
Mukul Rohatgi, Sr Advocate, who led the arguments on behalf of the lessees argued that the words “mining operations” are statutorily defined and mean excavation. Also, that the statutory scheme itself envisaged a 6 month period for removal of ore, even from inside the lease, when a lease comes to an end. It was also argued that the High Court could not have gone beyond the SC judgment and confiscated the ore, for which there was no suggestion in the SC judgment.
What aspects do you think tilted the judgment in favour of your clients?
The SC has based its judgment on the statutory scheme which allows for removal of ore within 6 months even after the expiry of a lease. It also noted that the very bench that had rendered the 2018 judgment had itself allowed transportation of ore lying at jetties and stockyards. The SC also observed that there was no basis to not extend the benefit to ore lying at the pithead of the lease.
Can you summarise for us what has the SC held?
The SC has declared the ore to belong to the lesees in terms of the statutory scheme and has allowed for the transportation of the ore on the condition of payment of royalty and obtaining of transit permits. It has also imposed a 6 month deadline for this.
How do you see this judgment impacting the revival of mining in the state?
Frankly, this judgment does not have any bearing on the revival of mining, in the sense, that it did not deal with recommencing excavation of ore. It only dealt with the already extracted ore in the aftermath of the SC judgment of 2018. The judgment in no way alters the position as to the expiry of leases, as declared in the judgment of 2018.
Is there any hope for the revival of the mining industry?
The SC has, in January, agreed to consider the plea of some lessees on whether leases in Goa (which were previously concessions granted by the Portuguese) are entitled to the statutorily granted tenure under the 2015 amendments to the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act of 1957.
