Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) – Mining in Goa Case

INTRODUCTION

The Goa Foundation v. Union of India case is a landmark case regarding the legality or illegalities of mining activities carried out in Goa, a state in India, and its environmental fallouts. That is about some of the mining operations of Manager Mines Limited, which has resulted in and has triggered many malpractices, namely, illegal mining, environmental degradation, no environmental clearances, non-payment of many statutory dues, and violation of inter-generational equity. The Goa Foundation, a public interest organization engaged in the field of ecology, filed the present petition in 2015 in the challenge of the mining leases held by several mining companies to exploit iron ore in the state of Goa. Further contended that ‘the mining activities have resulted in environmental degradation of the highest degree in the State in the form of loosening of forests and water bodies and havoc to the wildlife.’ It was also contended that most of the mining leases were granted by the State Government without seeking mandatory environmental clearance in flagrant violation of the rule of law The case has found coverage by media widely, and it was seen as one with relevance in the fields of environmental protection and sustainable development. Thus, this very case also threw up some important legal issues arising out of the interpretation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.

The case was heard by a division bench in the Supreme Court, comprising the justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta. The bench heard arguments from both the petitioner and the respondent, the state government of Goa and mining companies, respectively. This is a case in which all environmentalists, legal stakeholders, and experts in the mining sector have been interested.

The case judgment came in 2018 when the Supreme Court nullified all mining leases that were granted by the state government of Goa. The court held that the grate of the mining lease was against the law and that they had failed to get the clearance of the environment. The court also ruled that mining companies should compensate the state government for the environmental damage caused by their activities.

The case of Goa Foundation vs. Union of India is an in-context case on environmental protection about sustainableness in India. It has, in general, underpinned the condition that economic development and environmental protection are for the same goal, and due regard to the environmental law to attain the goal of sustainable development is very important.

FACTS

The case of The Goa Foundation v. Union of India pertains to the legality and environmental issues in the mining activity in the State of Goa, India. Let’s have a quick look at the main facts in the case. 1. The State of Goa is a lessor of mining: The State Government of Goa had given out several leases to the mining companies to extract iron ore in the State. These mining leases had been granted under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, 2 Environmental clearances: The mining companies were supposed to take environmental clearances from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) before starting the mining activities. It was, however, alleged that most of the mining leases were granted without taking the required environmental clearances.

3. Reports of illegal mining: Justice M.B. Shah Commission was constituted by the central government to inquire into the allegations of illegal mining in the state. The Commission presented the report in the year 2012, and the report stated very much illegal mining carried out in the state against the mining leases and environmental laws. Other social and economic impacts were environmental degradation. Many expert committees, including the Shah Commission, repeatedly brought to the notice the adverse impact of mining activities on the environment in the state, including damage to forests, water bodies, and wildlife.
4. Non-payment of taxes: Even the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India had conducted an audit of the mining companies operating in the state. The CAG report in 2013 pointed out that the mining companies had not paid the taxes due to the state government.
5. Application filed in 2015: A petition was filed before the Supreme Court of India in 2015 by the non-profit foundation, the Gou Foundation, against the legality of the mining leases granted concerning the State Government of aforesaid Gon. The petition sought the cancellation of the said mining leases and the recovery of dues owed to the State Government.

In general, the facts of the matter are a dispute between the state government of Gou and several mining companies, on one side, and a foundation, the Gou Foundation, on the opposing side, about the lawfulness and consequences to the environment of mining activities in the state. The case at hand develops valuable issues related to sustainable development, environmental protection, and inter-generational equity. ISSUES

In the Goa Foundation vs. Union of India case, the Supreme Court of India considered several issues concerning illegal mining, environmental protection, and sustainable development in Goa. Some of the issues which the Court took note of are:

1. Validity of mining leasers The Court considered the question of the validity of the mining leases that had been granted by the Government of Goa and whether the grant of the leases can be said to be by
2. Environmental laws and their inadequacies Environmental harm caused by mining The Court considered the inadequacies in the environmental laws the protection of the environment, and mining-related activities in the Indian state of Goa, including deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution.
3. Protection of the environment: The government’s protection of the environment and the corresponding obligation of the government should fulfill this mandate that dictates that natural resources must be used in a sustainable manner
4. Inter-generational Equity: The Court considered the principle of intergenerational equity to mean the use of a natural resource in a sustainable manner so that the rights of future generations may be safeguarded.
5. Community Participation: The Court studied the bit on the affected community making decisions on the extraction of natural resources and the necessity of having their interests covered.
6. Rehabilitation of the affected communities: it considered the necessary steps to take by the communities affected and how these mining activities may compensate them.

In effect, vast problems have been covered by the Supreme Court of India related to illegal mining, environmental protection, and sustainable development within the state of Goa. The verdict and decision of the court have huge ramifications on the issue of environmental protection and sustainable development in India.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPELLANT

1. Violation of Environmental Laws: Many of the mining leases granted by the Goa State Government were without the environmental clearances required from the MoEF, which is mandatory as per the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner cited the case of Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2011), wherein it was opined that mining activities necessitated environmental clearances and, therefore, without such a clearance mining activity would be illegal.
2. Inter-generational equity: According to the petitioner, due to mining activities irretrievable degradation had manifested in the environment. These impacts would have a long-term effect on generations to come. In support of his position, the petitioner drew reliance on the decision in Indian Council for Enviro­ Legal Action v Union of India, where the Supreme Court enunciated that, beyond doubt, inter-generational equity was a keystone prin­ciple of that area of jurisprudence, signifying that the present gener­ation owes to future generations the obligation of protecting the environment adequately.
3. Non-payment of dues: The petitioner contended that the mining companies working in the State were not paying the dues to be given to the State Government, thereby causing a loss of revenue to the State. The petitioner relied on the judgment of Common Cause vs. Union of India, (2017) in which the Supreme Court has directed the Central Government to take action against those mining companies that have not paid their dues to the State Governments.
4. Thus, in contravention of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: The petitioner mentioned and argued that in the execution of the same, the majority of mining leases had been given against the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, wherein the state government was supposed to act in a pretty transparent and fair manner in the grant of the mining Icasesand also it referred to the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India (2014). The Supreme Court has clearly and equitably declared an enunciation of the grant of the leases for mines, stating that the government could not give a discriminating grant of leases to private parties.
5. Adverse impact on the locality: As viewed by the petitioner, mining did adversely affect the lives of the people and the communities of the state who were mainly dependent on agriculture and traditional professions. A case example is the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1985). where the Supreme Court had maintained that the right to a clean environment formed a part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and that the state was under a threshold obligation to ensure citizens a clean environment.

Through the provisions, the petitioner argued that mining activities have caused massive environmental and social impacts in the state, and the same had escaped the notice of the state government. The appellant, therefore, demanded the cancellation of mining leases granted by the state government and the recovery of dues owed to the state government. Finally, the petitioner sought compensation for the damage suffered by the environment and the local communities due to mining activities.

Some of the arguments raised by the Respondent in the matter at hand, in the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2018), is that the mining lease was provided legally and by all the practices of laws and regulations. It was also contended by the Respondent that the mining operations were imperative to bring economic development to the state and country.

The  contentions advanced by the respondents are:

1. Compliance with laws: The respondents have put forth that the mining leases have been granted after compliance with all the related laws and regulations. The respondents contended that the mining operations are taking place as per the sanctioned mining plans and the environmental clearances given by the concerned authorities.
2. Economic development: They opined that the mining activities were vital for the State and country’s economic development. The respondents also argued that mining contributed a significant amount of money to the State and the closure of mining activities would impact drastically various aspects of life.
3. Balance of interests: The respondents submitted that the balancing of interests of all those stakeholders: mining companies, the state, local communities, and the environment, should be done. The respondents put forth their contention that the closure of the mining activities will expose people to job losses and related hardships, rather than the environmental restoration which might take several years.

The respondents referred to several case laws to buttress their argument. Some of them are:

1. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) held that development activities should be carried out sustainably, balancing the interests of all the stakeholders.
2. State of Orissa v. Mahima Shankar Mishra (2012): In the case, the Supreme Court held that the mining leases shall be canceled only when such leases are found to be illegal or passed in contravention of laws.
3. State of Goa v. Western India Mining Co. Ltd. (2014): In this case, it had been held by the Bombay High Court that the mining leases in Goa were valid and legal and that the Mining Companies had complied with all the applicable laws and regulations.

Relying upon these pleas and precedents the respondents had prayed to the Court to permit the mining activities to continue, subject to compliance with all the relevant laws and regulations.

RATIO DECIDENDI 

A ratio decidendi in a case is a legal reasoning and principle for the decision of the court. This is the case of Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2018), where the Supreme Court of India directed the shutdown of all mining activities in the State of Goa that had been carried on under mining leases granted before or fixed on November 22, 2007.

The Court held that the government of Goa had renewed mining leases without the statutorily required prior environmental clearances from the central government, as required by the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994. The Court also went on to observe that mining activities have caused serious damage to the environment in terms of deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

The principle of the respondents that the mining activities were an inevitable part of the economic development in the State and the country had been dismissed by the court. The court maintained that economic interests could not be any license for flouting the laws and carrying out environmental damage. The Court also observed that although mining activities had resulted in huge profits for the mining companies, the same had not benefited local communities that have borne the adversities of mining.

The Court held that on account of the aforesaid failure to obtain said clearance/environmental clearances, the mining lease had become illegal and void and the State government of Goa acted illegally in renewing the mining lease. The Court also observed that the renewal of mining leases by the Goa Government has led to revenue loss for the State Government, as the mining companies have been paying lower royalty rates than those fixed by the Central Government.

The Court thus held that all mining activities in the State of Goa were to cease and that the State government was to recover all that was due from the mining companies with interest and penalty, through the higher rates of royalty imposed by the Central government. The Court also further directed that the Central government should start the procedure of auctioning those mining leases transparently and fairly as per law.

What the judgment finds as the ratio decidendi in the case is that leases granted for mining without obtaining necessary environmental clearances are illegal and void, and no economic interests can be used to justify violations of laws and environmental damage. The decision also focuses on the importance of transparency and fairness in auctioning natural resources and the immediate need for the government to prioritize its interests toward local communities and the environment over corporate interests.

JUDGMENT

In Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2018),  the Supreme Court of India passed a judgment ordering the closure of all mining activities in the State of Goa. The Court has concluded that the mining leases in question were renewed by the State government of Goa without obtaining the mandatory environmental clearances, a pretty clear violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 1994.

The court observed that the mining operations had caused vast environmental degradation, such as deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Upon that, the court noted that the mining companies gained vast degrading through the mining operations by their notifications to the government through taxes, this is at the expense of the local communities who forfeited their sole sustenance because of the deteriorative effect the mining operations had on the environment.

It turned down the contentions that mining activities were necessary for the economic development of the state and the country, observing that economic interests did not permit the violation of laws and spoiling the environment.

The court ruled that with the claimed failure to make mandatory environmental clearances, the mining leases became illegal and void, with the State government of Goa illegally acting in renewing them. The court further observed that the renewal of the mining leases led to a loss of revenue to the state, as the mining companies were allowed to pay a reduced rate of royalty compared to the rate recommended by the central government.

In its order, the court declared all mining operations in the State of Goa to be completely terminated and ordered the state government to recover from mining companies all amounts due, including under the revised rates fixed by the central government. The court further directed the government to transparently and fairly begin the process of auctioning mining leases by the law.

Conclusion: 

The Supreme Court judgment said in clear terms that mining cannot be allowed to carry on without the mandatory environmental clearances and also that economic interest cannot be over environmental concerns. The earlier judgment also underlines the principle that there is a need for transparency and fairness in the auctioning of natural resources whereas the state should put the interests of the local communities and environment before the interests of the corporate houses.