GOA FOUNDATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
April 21,2014
GOA FOUNDATION
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. THEIR WORKMEN [REFERRED TO]UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA BISWAROOP CHATTERJEE ACHINTA KUMAR BISWAS NABENDU BOSE LAXMI NARAYAN VS. TULSIRAM PATEL:SADANAND JHA:G P KOUSHAL:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN BEDT KIRAN BEDI JINDER SINGH JINDER SINGH VS. COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY:COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY:COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY:COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY [REFERRED TO]
TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. LAL KRISHNA ADVANI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. LALJI TANDON [REFERRED TO]
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VASSUDEVA MADEVA SALGAOCAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-11-36] [REFERRED TO]THE STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-12-26] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH BROTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-2-214] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI GUPTA VS. APARNA ARORA [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-8-168] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. VS. J & J MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
KOLKATA FISH SUPPLIERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2019-8-210] [REFERRED TO]
CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. GOA FOUNDATION [LAWS(SC)-2020-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-143] [REFERRED TO]
PINKI KUMARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-8-114] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH BROTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
M/S INDUS TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-158] [REFERRED TO]
BLACK ROCK HILL PLANTERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-314] [REFERRED TO]
SARIN MEMORIAL LEGAL AID FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-146] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-365] [REFERRED TO]
SURESHKUMAR CHOTUBHAI SALAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT &ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-6-462] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF INDIAN MINERAL INDUSTRIES (FIMI) VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
GOA FOUNDATION VS. M/S SESA STERLITE LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-102] [REFERRED TO]
B.S. NANDA KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-217] [REFERRED TO]
SYED AHMED VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-369] [REFERRED TO]
SESA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED VS. SPECIFIED AUTHORITY AND JOINT SECRETARY [LAWS(BOM)-2023-6-1123] [REFERRED TO]
HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, LOHARDAGA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-11-130] [REFERRED]
TATA STEEL LIMITED AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
RANVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-177] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR PODDAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
BOLUSANI GOWRI SHANKAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-6-63] [REFERRED TO]
DISTRICT COLLECTOR VS. M R M RAMAIYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-253] [REFERRED TO]
COMMON CAUSE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-4-97] [REFERRED TO]
SULEKHAN SINGH & CO. & ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
COMMON CAUSE VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2016-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL SHARMA VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [LAWS(SC)-2014-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
K.N.S OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-405] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA MANGANESE AND MINERALS LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BAHADUR THAKUR LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(KER)-2017-3-393] [REFERRED TO]
SAI PUSHP ENTERPRISES VS. THANE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2022-5-76] [REFERRED TO]
SESA STERLITE LINITED VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-1-179] [REFERRED TO]
GREENTEX MINING INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-376] [REFERRED TO]
ADITYAPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2022-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-4-139] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS LTD. VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-2014-9-122] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY RAM SHARMA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2017-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
BINAY KUMAR DALEI VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHBHAI UKKAD VASAVA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-4-254] [REFERRED TO]
COROMANDEL MINING & EXPORTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
TRIMURTI EXPORTS AND ORS. VS. MODELAMA EXPORTS LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
OASIS DALE AGGREGATE PRODUCTS (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2020-2-82] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR AHMED.H.A VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH BROTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF MINES AND STEEL [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-10-91] [REFERRED TO]
PROF. H.B. WALIKAR VS. THE CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES IN KARNATAKA AND HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-11-402] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
TANGKHAM M. SANGMA VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. GOA FOUNDATION [LAWS(SC)-2020-1-94] [REFERRED TO]
GOA FOUNDATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2014-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF MINES AND STEEL [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-10-82] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY HAVING OFFICE AT JHARKHAND MANTRALAYA, PROJECT BHAWAN, HEC TOWNSHIP, DHURWA, P.O. & P.S. VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER (LIASON) MR. DEBANANDA MARNDI, S/O LATE BALAI MARANDI, R/O ROOM NO.26, IEH, SAIL SATELLITE TOWNSHIP, P.O. [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-6-115] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR CHUGH AND ORS. VS. SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(NGT)-2015-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
LITHOFERRO, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM VS. DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, GOVERNMENT OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
H B WALIKAR VS. CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITIES IN KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2014-11-404] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. VS. TANGKHAM M. SANGMA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
FOREIGN TRADE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2017-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
GOA FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF GOA, [LAWS(BOM)-2018-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(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 Transferred Cases, the cases have been analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts relating to mining in Goa:
(2.)Prior to 19.12.1961 when Goa was a Portuguese 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 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 concessionaires moved the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench, and by judgment dated 29.09.1983, in Vassudeva Madeva Salgaocar vs. Union of India, 1985 1 BCR 36, the Bombay High Court restrained the Union of India from treating the concessions as mining leases and from enforcing the notification against the concessionaires.
(3.)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 Abolition Act abolished the mining concessions and declared that with effect from the 20th 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 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 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 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 under Rule 24A of the MC Rules. Subsequently, the High Court held in its judgment dated 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 before this Court. On 02.03.1998, this Court passed an interim order permitting the concessionaires to carry on mining operations and mining business in the mining areas for which renewal applications 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.
The Justice Shah Commission and its report:
(2.)Prior to 19.12.1961 when Goa was a Portuguese 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 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 concessionaires moved the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench, and by judgment dated 29.09.1983, in Vassudeva Madeva Salgaocar vs. Union of India, 1985 1 BCR 36, the Bombay High Court restrained the Union of India from treating the concessions as mining leases and from enforcing the notification against the concessionaires.
(3.)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 Abolition Act abolished the mining concessions and declared that with effect from the 20th 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 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 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 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 under Rule 24A of the MC Rules. Subsequently, the High Court held in its judgment dated 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 before this Court. On 02.03.1998, this Court passed an interim order permitting the concessionaires to carry on mining operations and mining business in the mining areas for which renewal applications 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.
The Justice Shah Commission and its report:
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.