9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioners sought directions to the State Government to decide their applications for renewal of the mining leases filed in the year 2007. Some petitions, thereafter, came to be amended, thereby seeking directions to the State Government to execute the second renewal lease deeds. Since the issues raised in these writ petitions are common, and the writ petitions have been analogously heard, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. BRIEF BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE A. On 19th December, 1961, Goa was liberated and became a part of Indian Union. On 1st October, 1963, the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter, referred to as "the MMDR Act") was made applicable to the Union Territory of Goa. Prior to liberation of Goa, the Portuguese who were ruling Goa had granted mining concessions in perpetuity to the concessionaires. On 10th March, 1975, the Controller of Mining Leases, by issuance of notification, called 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. The concessionaires, aggrieved by thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmission submitted its interim report in March, 2012 to the Ministry of Mines, Union of India. In the month of September, 2012, the Justice Shah Commission Report on Goa was tabled in the Parliament along with an Action Taken Report of the Ministry of Mines and on 10th September, 2012 State Government passed an order suspending all mining operations in the State of Goa with effect from 11th September, 2012. On the basis of the findings of the report of the Justice Shah Commission on illegal mining in the State of Goa, Goa Foundation filed Writ Petition (C) 435 of 2012 in the Supreme Court 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 the lessees involved in the mining in violation of the aforesaid Acts. Various mining lessees of the State of Goa and the Goa Mining Association also filed Writ Petitions in this Court for a declaration that the report of Shah Commission is illegal and for quashing the findings in the report of the Justice Shah Commission and for quashing the order dated 10th September, 2012 of the State Government suspending all mining operations in the State of G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dency of Writ Petition (C) 435/2012, these applications were processed by the State Government under the provisions of the MMDR Act and the MC Rules. The State Government also framed Goa Mineral Policy, 2013, which was duly gazetted on 28th September, 2013 and was placed on record before the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) 435/2012. The State Government, in terms of this policy, in principle, agreed to renew 28 leases. These leaseholders were also asked to pay stamp duty. In some cases, after payment of the stamp duty, decision under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act was taken to renew the leases and that decision is also gazetted. Thus, the petitions are classified in three categories mentioned hereinbelow: (A) Where there is notification issued in the Official Gazette after taking a decision for renewal; (B) Where there is a decision for renewal and there is stamp duty collected; and (C) Where there are renewal applications made and are still pending. All the petitioners initially sought directions to the State Government to decide their applications for renewal filed in the year 2007. However, the petitions which fell in the first two categories were subsequently amended a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submitted that the right to second renewal is vested in the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners have paid huge stamp duty pursuant to the directions of the State Government. They also submitted that the petitioners legitimately expected that the Government would execute the second renewal lease deeds and the Government is now estopped from refusing execution of second renewal lease deed, taking shelter of the Judgment of the Apex Court. (x) Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Apex Court judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 435 of 2012 cannot be an impediment in the way of Government to execute the second renewal lease deed. (xi) Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the light of the above submissions, the petitions are required to be allowed, by directing the State Government to execute the second renewal of the lease deeds in respect of the cases in which stamp duty is already paid and in cases where stamp duty is not paid, the Government be directed to decide all the applications filed by the petitioners for second renewal of the leases, expeditiously. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED ADVOCATE GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT, STATE OF GOA. 5. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not taken by the Government and the decision was taken in principle to grant the second renewal of the leases, the doctrine of promissory estoppel has no application in the present case. He lastly submitted that the petitions are devoid of any merit, and the same are liable to be dismissed. CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE COUNSEL 6. From the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel/Counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Goa, and from the record, the following undisputed facts emerge: (A) The State Government in terms of the provisions of Section 8(2), read with the provisions of Section 24A(3) of MC Rules, granted first renewal to the petitioners for a period of 20 years, which period expired in the year 2007. (B) Before expiry of the period of first renewal, the petitioners preferred applications for second renewal of the mining leases. (C) The mining plans were approved by the IBM; (D) The Government sought report of IBM in terms of the provisions of Section 24A(3) of the MC Rules. (E) The IBM recommended second renewal for 20 years, subject to satisfaction that the mining was in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 292/2014, in para 15 made the following statement: "15.... These 28 leases were renewed after 2007 when indeed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Goa Mining leases have expired in the year 2007 and further these leases were renewed under Section 8(2) which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the renewals had to be under Section 8(3). On both these counts, the question of the Petitioners relying upon 28 leases on the strength of the so-called renewals which are non est and a complete nullity.... It is possible that some cases are renewed under Section 8(3) of MMDR Act.". (V) In paras 23, 24 and 25 of the said affidavit, the Government made the following averments: "23. I further state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in between in the year 2014 has delivered a Judgment holding that the leases have expired in view of the same even the renewals which were granted post 2007, also fall into an area whose validity becomes doubtful; nonetheless the State Government is entitled to and will take a view on the same in the policy. 24. Whether or not such renewals which have taken place, were lawful, whether such renewals were permissible and what happens to su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rused the impugned order of the High Court. We are unable to appreciate the approach of the High Court. Even when it was faced with diametrically apposite (sic opposite) interpretation of the judgment of this Court, it was expected of the High Court to decide the case (Writ Petition) on merit according to its own interpretation of the said judgment. Instead the High Court after referring to rival contentions of the parties, in para 3, observed thus: "In our view, the right course for the Petitioner will be to approach the Apex Court and to seek a clarification of the said order. Mr. Singhvi is agreeable to take necessary steps." And having directed the appellants herein to take back the employees for a period of four months or until order is passed by this Court, whichever is earlier, disposed of the writ petition." The Apex Court, ultimately, set aside the order of the High Court and restored the writ petition to the file of the High Court to decide the same on merits, expeditiously. The said decision makes it clear that it is the duty of this Court to interpret the Judgment of the Apex Court and the petitioners herein cannot be directed to approach the Apex Court for clarifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he lease beyond 21.11.2007. 23. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, which provides the maximum and minimum periods for which a 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 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. Subsection (3) of Section 8, however, 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 First Schedule for a further period or periods not exceeding twenty years in eac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 (9) 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 the deemed mining leases in Goa as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act read with Sub-rules (8) and (9) of Rule 24A of the MC Rules expired on 22.11.2007." Admittedly, there is no challenge to Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act and it can hardly be suggested that this provision is impliedly struck off by the Supreme Court. 10. The Government of Goa framed Goa Mineral Policy, 2013 and placed on record of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 435 of 2012. Resume of the arguments was also placed on record of the Supreme Court in the said petition, on behalf of the State of Goa. In both the documents, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approach the Supreme Court for seeking clarification, is also without merit in view of the observations of the Supreme Court particularly in paragraph 70 of the judgment by which the Supreme Court allowed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 435/2013 and consequently all the transferred cases, the IA filed by MPT, as well as other IAs stood disposed of. The Apex Court directed the Expert Committee to submit its final report within six months from the date of the Judgment. The Supreme Court directed the State of Goa to submit the scheme with regard to the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund within six months from the date of the judgment. It is only for the aforesaid submission of the report and the scheme that the writ petition would be listed before the Supreme Court as directed by it. THE PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL/LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION 15. This takes us to consider whether the petitioners are entitled for the directions as claimed in the petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, in this regard, vehemently argued that the doctrine of promissory estoppel/legitimate expectation is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the Government of Goa promised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fair and just or that it is not bound by considerations of "honesty and good faith"? Why should the Government not be held to a high "standard of rectangular rectitude while dealing with its citizens"? There was a time when the doctrine of executive necessity was regarded as sufficient justification for the Government to repudiate even its contractual obligations; but, let it be said to the eternal glory of this Court, this doctrine was emphatically negatived in the Indo-Afghan Agencies case and the supremacy of the rule of law was established....The Government cannot, as Shah, J., pointed out in the Indo-Afghan Agencies case, claim to be exempt from the liability to carry out the promise "on some indefinite and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency", nor can the Government claim to be the sole Judge of its liability and repudiate it "on an ex parte appraisement of the circumstances". If the Government wants to resist the liability, it will have to disclose to the Court what are the facts and circumstances on account of which the Government claims to be exempt from the liability and it would be for the Court to decide whether those facts and circumstances are such as to ren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iment. What is necessary is only that the promisee should have altered his position in reliance on the promise. This position was impliedly accepted by Denning J., in the High Trees case when the learned Judge pointed out that the promise must be one "which was intended to create legal relations and which, to the knowledge of the person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made and which was in fact acted on", (emphasis supplied). If a promise is "acted on", "such action, in law as in physics, must necessarily result in an alteration of position....We do not think that in order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel it is necessary for the promisee to show that he suffered detriment as a result of acting in reliance on the promise. But we may make it clear that if by detriment we mean injustice to the promisee which would result if the promisor were to recede from his promise, then detriment would certainly come in as a necessary ingredient. The detriment in such a case is not some prejudice suffered by the promisee by acting on the promise, but the prejudice which would be caused to the promisee, if the promisor were allowed to go back o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xecuted under Section 8(3) and pursuant to the promise, the petitioners altered their position by depositing the huge stamp duty. Therefore, it now not open for the Government to resile from the promise as it is estopped by the doctrine of promissory estoppel from doing so. The petitioners legitimately expected that after payment of the stamp duty, the Government would execute the second leases under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. In our considered opinion, the principle of promissory estoppel is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Government is reluctant to execute the lease deeds under Section 8(3) only on the ground that it is not open for it to do so in the light of the Apex Court judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 435/2012. We have already held that the Supreme Court judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 435/2012 is not an impediment in the Government's way in executing the leases in terms of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. 17. Before parting with this Judgment, we must mention that the petitioners have made statements that if this Court directs that lease deeds be executed in favour of the petitioners in form "K" under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act, and such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
