CENTRAL EMPOWERED COMMITTEE

REPORT (INTERIM) OF THE CEC IN WRIT PETITION

(CIVIL) NO. 435 OF 2012 FILED BY THE GOA
FOUNDATION REGARDING ALLEGED CONTINUED
ILLEGAL MINING IN THE STATE OF GOA AND
ASSOCIATED ISSUES.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 435 of 2012 has been filed by the Goa

Foundation regarding alleged continued illegal mining in the State of

Goa in alleged violation of the direction of this Hon’ble Court and the

provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Wildlife (Protection)

Act, 1972 and other environmental laws, the Mines and Mineral

(Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and other applicable Acts /

Rules and the alleged failure of the Ministry of Environment & Forests,

the Ministry of Mines and the State of Goa to exercise their statutory

duties and consequent alleged plunder of public resources and total

degradation of environment and other related issues. In the Writ

Petition following prayer has been made:

“i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction, directing

immediate steps to be initiated by the Respondents

to terminate all leases that are found to be involved

in illegal mining and mining in violation of the

provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the

environment laws and other laws.

 2

ii) To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writ order or direction, directing the Respondents

that no mining operation including trading and

transportation in respect of the mining leases shall

take place unless all the statutory sanctions,

permissions and approvals are subsisting;

iii) To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writ order or direction to the Respondents, directing

action against all the violators involved either directly

or indirectly in illegal mining including those named

in the report of Justice Shah Commission including,

but not limited to under section 21 r/w section 4(1)

and 4(1A) and 21 (5) of MM(DR) Act 1957 r/w Rule

24-A of mineral concession Rules 1960; section

45(a) of water (prevention and control of pollution)

Act 1974 ad section 37 and 39 of the AIR

(Prevention and Control of pollution) Act 1981,

provisions of Indian Penal Code 1960;

iv) To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writ order or direction, directing the Respondents to

recover the illegal wealth accumulated through illegal

mining and related activity;

 3

v) To issue an appropriate writ declaring as null and

void retrospectively all renewals, leases, sub-leases

granted / renewed in contravention of Rule 24 A of

the Mineral Concession Rule, 1960;

vi) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the

Respondent No. 1 to 5 to repair, restore and re-

vegetate the area in accordance with established

forestry practices in terms of the National Forest

Policy, 1988 and to require all mining lessees /

occupants operating in forest land and in land

covered by trees to pay a fine and compensate for

such repairs, restoration and revegetation;

vii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the

Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 to prohibit any mining

activity or transportation of already extracted ore or

dump / rejection without following provisions of the

Indian Forest Act, 1927.

viii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction for the

appointment of an independent authority vested with

full powers to take control, supervise and regulate

 4

mining operations in State of Goa and to implement

the provision of law.

ix) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction to the

Respondents for the prosecution of offenders /

violators involved in loss / pilferage of state revenue,

offences and illegalities committed in the mining

activities in State of Goa and connivance of public

servants in abetting and abiding the offences and

illegalities in the mining activities in the State of Goa.

x) To direct a macro EIA of the area by a suitable

agency to demarcate areas where no mining can

take place

xi) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble court may

deem fit and proper in light of the facts and

circumstances of the case”.

2. The Writ Petition was heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on

5th October, 2012 when the following order was passed:

“The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) is directed to submit

its report on this writ petition, which is essentially based on the

report of Justice M.B. Shah (a former Judge of this Court),

 5

Chairman of the Commission of Enquiry for illegal mining of iron

ore and manganese.

The Secretaries of the Ministries of Mines and Forest and

Environment, Union of India, and the Chief Secretary of the

State of Goa are directed to furnish all information that the CEC

may require for making its report for the Court in light of the

Shah Commission’s report.

A preliminary report from the CEC should reach this Court

within four weeks from today.

Put up receipt of the report from the CEC.

Till further orders, all mining operations in the leases

identified in the Shah Commission’s report and transportation of

iron ore and manganese ore from those leases, whether lying at

the mine-head or stockyards, shall remain suspended, as

recommended in the Commission’s report”.

3. This Report (Interim) is being filed by the CEC pursuant to

above said order of this Hon’ble Court and after examining the matter

during the site visit carried out by Mr. P.V. Jayakrishnan, Chairman,

CEC along with Mr. Mahendra Vyas, Member, CEC and Learned

Amicus Curiae between 28th October, 2012 to 31st October, 2012 and

meeting held on 21st November, 2012 and after considering the

submissions made / information provided by the Ministry of

 6

Environment & Forests, the Ministry of Mines the State of Goa, the

Petitioner, the Associations of Mining Industries, the lease holders and

others, the Report of the Justice M.B. Shah Commission of Inquiry for

illegal mining of iron ore and manganese – Report on the State of Goa

and other relevant details.

BACKGROUND

4. The territories of Goa, Daman & Diu were liberated and became

a part of Union of India on 19th December, 1961. Prior to that the grant

and vesting of mineral rights was regulated under the decree dated

20th September, 1906 of the Portuguese Government (Portuguese

Colonial Mining Laws) and under which the mining concessions were

granted to exploit mineral for unlimited period (in perpetuity) subject to

compliance of the terms and concessions of the title of grant. A copy

of the chart giving details of the such concessions such as the name

of the concessionaires, number and dates of the title stated to be

maintained by the Department of Mines and as provided to the CEC

by the Petitioner is enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-1(Vol.1) to this Report.

From the above said chart it is seen that about 791 mining

concessions were granted between 30th January, 1929 to 2nd June,

1964 (including seven concessions granted after 19th December,

1961) and out of which about 276 concessions were declared free /

cancelled.
 7

5. The Mine and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957,

hereinafter referred to MMDR Act, 1957, became applicable in Goa

with effect from 1st October, 1963 (except Section 16, which became

applicable with effect from 15th January, 1966). The Controller of

Mines, IBM, during the period from 15th January, 1966 to November,

1975, issued a number of notifications / orders for treating the mining

concessions as existing leases under the MMDR Act, 1957 and

related issues. These orders were challenged before the Revision

Authority and which quashed such orders of the Controller of Mines.

6. The Controller of Mines, after amendment of Section 16 of the

MMDR Act, 1957 in the year 1972 (with effect from 12th September,

1972), started afresh the process of modification of the mining

concessions and against which a number of Writ Petitions were filed

before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The Hon’ble Bombay High

Court by order dated 29th September, 1983 partly allowed the Writ

Petitions and restrained the Government from taking steps or

proceedings for treating the mining concessions as existing leases

under the MMDR Act, 1957. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay by its order dated 22nd November, 1983, passed in

another Writ Petition, also held that Government is not entitled to

recover any royalty.

7. In view of the above directions of the Hon’ble High Court, the

mining concessions were not liable to be regulated under any law.

 8

8. The Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concessions (Abolition and

Declaration as Mining Leases) Act, 1987 (Act 16 of 1987) after receipt

of the assent of the President came into force on 23rd May, 1987. A

copy of the said Act, hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act, 1987,

alongwith the First schedule containing the details of 591 mining

concessions granted between 30th January, 1929 to 30th August, 1961

and the Second schedule containing the details of five mining

concessions granted between 11th July, 1963 to 10th August, 1963 is

enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-2(Vol.1) to this Report. As per sub section

1 & 2 of section 4 of the Abolition Act, 1987, each of the 591 mining

concessions specified in the First Schedule and five mining

concessions specified in the Second schedule of the said Act are

deemed to have been abolished and deemed to be the mining leases

granted under the MMDR Act, 1957. Section 4(3) provides that the

error etc in respect of the particulars of the mining concessions

specified in the First or Second schedule may be corrected by the

Central Government by issue of a Notification. Section 5 of the

Abolition Act, 1987 provides that the period of the deemed mining

leases shall be extended up to six months from the date of assent (i.e.

with effect from 23rd May, 1987 and up to 22nd November, 1987). It

also provided a right to the concession holders (deemed lease

holders) to apply for renewal of mining leases in accordance with the

provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 and the Rules made there under.
 9

9. The vires of the Abolition Act, 1987 were challenged through a

number of Writ Petitions filed by the concession holders before the

Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Panaji. The Hon’ble Bombay High

Court at Panaji passed interim orders permitting the petitioners to

carry on with mining operations in the mining areas for which renewal

applications were made on the condition of payments of dead rent /

royalty prospectively and subject to them complying with all the other

conditions. The Hon’ble High Court by Judgment dated 20th June,

1997 in Writ Petition No. 177/90 and other Writ Petitions upheld the

validity of the Abolition Act, 1987 except that it held that the section 22

would be applicable prospectively (the section 22 provided that the

royalty / deed rent is payable with retrospective effect).

10. Against the above said impugned Judgment of the Hon’ble High

Court, a number of concession holders filed SLP’s before this Hon’ble

Court. This Hon’ble Court has passed the following order dated 2nd

March, 1998 in SLP (Civil) No. 388-427/1998 and other SLP’s:

“Delay Condoned in SLP (C)……./98 CC2629. Special Leave

granted. Printing dispensed with. The appeals to be heard 0n

SLP paper books. The learned Counsel for the appellants shall

file additional papers to complete the record.

During the pendency of the appeals, the appellants are

permitted to carry on mining operations and mining business in

the mining areas for which renewal applications have been

 10

made on the condition that the appellants shall pay to the

respondents from the date of commencement of impugned Act

all the amount of dead rent as now stipulated by respondents

under the impugned Act without prejudice and under protest.

The appellants will also comply with all other conditions. As

regards the period from 1961 till the coming into force of the

impugned Act, it will be open to the respondents to take

proceedings for assessment of the amounts payable by the

appellants but no recovery shall be made without further orders

from the Court”.

The matter is stated to be pending under consideration of

this Hon’ble Court.

11. As stated earlier, the section 5 of the Abolition Act, 1987

provides that the lease holder may apply for the renewal of the mining

lease in accordance with the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1957 and

the Rules made there under. The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960,

hereinafter referred to as MCR, 1960 as applicable on 23rd May, 1987

when the Abolition Act, 1987 came into force provided that the

applications for the renewal of the mining leases shall be made to the

State Government in Form-J at least 12 months before the due date of

the expiry of the mining leases (refer Rule 24A(1)). Since under the

provisions of the Abolition Act, 1987 the concessions were abolished

from 23rd May, 1987 and the period of the deemed mining leases was

extended up to six months with effect from that date, none of the
 11

deemed lease holders could have applied for the renewal of the

mining leases within the stipulated period. In the above background

the MCR, 1960 was amended with effect from 14th October, 1987 by

inserting sub Rule (8), Rule 24(A) and which provided that the

applications for the first renewal of the deemed mining leases

declared under Section 4 of the Abolition Act, 1987 can be made

before the expiry of the period of the mining lease. It also provided

that the State Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, may

allow extension of time for making such application up to a total period

not exceeding one year.

12. The Government of Goa vide Notifications dated 20th November,

1987 and 20th May, 1988 has allowed extension of six months each

(totaling one year) for making applications for the first renewal of

deemed mining leases. Accordingly, the deemed mining lease holders

were permitted to file applications for the first renewal of the deemed

mining leases up to 22nd November, 1988 (as the deemed mining

leases expired on 22nd November, 1987 and extension of one year

granted by the State Government). As per the information provided to

the CEC out of 595 mining concessions abolished and converted into

deemed mining leases under Section 4 of the Abolition Act, 1987, as

many as 379 deemed mining lease holders have filed applications for

the first renewal of the mining leases within the prescribed time (as

extended by the State Government) i.e. before 22nd November, 1988.

In addition, 59 such lessees have filed the applications for the first

renewal of the deemed mining leases after 22nd November, 1988 i.e.
 12

beyond the time limit permitted under Rule, 24A(8), MCR, 1960 (and

which apparently was not permissible) .

13. The MCR, 1960, as amended with effect from 14th October,

1987 provided for extension of the lease period up to one year from

the date of expiry of lease period and date of receipt of renewal

application (whichever is later) provided the application for first

renewal had been made within the prescribed time period as extended

by the State Government (refer Rule 24A(9), MCR, 1960). The Rule

24A(9) MCR, 1960 was further amended with effect from 27th

September, 1994 and which provided that the period of the lease deed

will be deemed to have been extended by further period till decision

on application for the first renewal is taken by the State Government

(provided application is made within stipulated time period as

extended by the State Government).

14. Section 8 of the MMDR Act, 1957 was amended with effect from

25th January, 1994 and which provides that the mining lease may be

renewed for a period not exceeding twenty years. Earlier, the renewal

of the mining lease was permissible for a maximum period of ten

years.

15. Pursuant to this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 14th February, 2000

and subsequent orders in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 mining

operations are prohibited within the National Park / Wildlife

Sanctuaries. Pursuant to this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 4th August,

 13

2006 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 mining operations are not

permissible within a distance of 1 km of the boundaries of a National

Park / Wildlife Sanctuary. Pursuant to this Hon’ble Court’s order dated

4th December, 2006 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 460 of 2004, the

environment clearances granted to the mining leases located within a

distance of 10 km of nearby National Parks / Sanctuaries are required

to be placed before the Standing Committee for National Board of

Wildlife.

16. Most of the iron ore extracted from the mining leases in the

State of Goa is exported to other countries. Between the year 1994-

1995 to the year 2001-2002, the export of iron ore varied from about

14 MMT per year to about 16 MMT per year. The export of iron ore

increased exponentially from about 16 MMT in the year 2001-2002

and reaching a record level of about 46.85 MMT in the year 2010-

2011.

17. The year wise details of the iron ore exported, as per the details

provided by the Goan Mineral Ore Exporters’ Association, are as

under:

S.No. Financial Year Total Exports of

iron ore

1. 1994-1995 14,753,892

2. 1995-1996 14,783,913

3. 1996-1997 14,476,497
 14

4. 1997-1998 18,441,931

5. 1998-1999 15,440,641

6. 1999-2000 15,139,315

7. 2000-2001 16,072,611

8. 2001-2002 16,698,510

9. 2002-2003 20,689,367

10. 2003-2004 22,095,993

11. 2004-2005 23,308,033

12. 2005-2006 25,537,924

13. 2006-2007 30,893,953

14. 2007-2008 33,434,429

15. 2008-2009 38,075,223

16. 2009-2010 45,686,900

17. 2010-2011 46,846,383

18. 2011-2012 38.252,554

18. As per the details provided by the Goan Mineral Ore Exporters’

Association, out of about 38.25 MMT iron ore exported in 2011-2012,

about 14.9 MMT (39%) was exported by M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. and M/s

Sesa Resources Ltd., about 7.4 MMT (19%) by Fomanto Group of

Companies and about 3.9 MMT (10%) by M/s Salgaokar Group of

Companies. The balance about 32% of the exports was accounted for

by others. The shipper wise details are given at ANNEXURE-R-3

(Vol.1) to this Report.

 15

19. Shri Justice M.B. Shah Commission of enquiry for illegal mining

of iron ore and manganese Report on the State of Goa was tabled in

Lok Sabha on 7th September, 2012. In the said report serious

observations have been made regarding illegal mining in the State of

Goa. These include:

i) violation of the direction of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

order dated 18th July, 2003 in Writ Petition No. 77 of 2001;

ii) complete lack of control on the working of mining leases in

Goa;

iii) substantial differences in the details of the production and

other details of the mining leases provided by various

Departments of the State of Goa;

iv) grant of environmental clearances for the mining leases

located within 1 km of the National Park / Wildlife

Sanctuaries in violation of the directions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court;

v) the environmental clearances granted within 10 km of the

National Park / Wildlife Sanctuaries and not placed for

consideration of the Standing Committee of the National

Board for Wildlife in violation of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court order dated 14th December, 2006;

 16

vi) mining operations in violation of Rule 38 of MCR, 1960;

vii) rampant violation of the Rule 24(A) of the MCR, 1960;

viii) arbitrary condonation of the delays in filing of renewal

applications after due date and without jurisdiction;

ix) illegal mining by way of mining pits and over burden

dumps etc outside the sanctioned mining lease areas; and

x) mining leases being operated by the lessees in violation of

the Rule 37 of the MCR, 1960;

20. The Government of Goa vide letter dated 10th September, 2012

(refer Annexure-P-5 of the Writ Petition) issued direction for

suspension of the mining operations in all the mining leases in the

State of Goa. However, the above said order did not prohibit the trade

and transportation of the ore already mined and in the transit / stock.

21. The MoEF vide order dated 14th September, 2012 (refer

Annexure-P-6 of the Writ Petition) issued a direction under section 5

of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to keep in abeyance all 139

environmental clearances accorded by the MoEF.

22. As stated earlier, this Hon’ble Court by its order dated 5th

October, 2012 has inter-alia directed that all the mining operations in

the leases identified in the Shah Commission Report and

transportation of iron ore and manganese shall remain suspended.

 17

23. The CEC, for the purpose of preparation of the present Report,

vide letters dated 12th October, 2012 addressed to the Chief

Secretary, Government of Goa, the Secretary, Ministry of Environment

& Forests and the Secretary, Ministry of Mines, sought relevant details

(copies of the CEC letters are collectively enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-

4 (Vol.1) to this Report).

24. On examination of the information provided on behalf of the

State of Goa, it was seen that there are significant inconsistencies and

contradictions and that the information was totally inadequate and

incomplete. The CEC thereafter vide letter dated 14th November, 2012

requested the Chief Secretary, State of Goa to provide the complete

information. The MoEF vide its Office Memorandum dated 25th

October, 2012 addressed to the CEC (copy enclosed, without

enclosures at ANNEXURE-R-5 (Vol.1) to this Report) provided part of

the information sought by the CEC and stated that the information in

respect of the balance items would be sent separately. The CEC vide

letter dated 14th November, 2012 requested the MoEF to provide the

information in respect of the balance items. Copies of the letter

addressed to the Chief Secretary, State of Goa and the Secretary,

MoEF are collectively enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-6 (Colly. Vol.1) to

this Report.

25. The CEC convened a meeting on 21st November, 2012 to

discuss the matter. The meeting was attended by the Chief Secretary,
 18

Goa and other senior officers of the State of Goa, the representatives

of the MoEF and the Ministry of Mines, the representatives of the

mining associations and a large number of lease holders. During the

meeting various issues identified by the CEC were discussed. The

State of Goa and the MoEF were requested to provide complete

details in this regard to the CEC. The association of mining industries

and the individual lease holders were informed that they may, on the

issues discussed during the meeting on or before 26th November,

2012, file their written submissions.

26. The Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, in response, vide

letter dated 27th November, 2012 provided the comments / views of

the State Government on the issues raised during discussions at the

meeting held on 21st November, 2012. (A copy of the same is

enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-7 (Vol.1) to this Report). In addition, the

Director, Mines and Geology, Government of Goa vide his letter dated

26/30th November, 2012 has provided revised information on various

issues (copy without enclosure enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-8 (Vol.1)

to this Report). The relevant annexures are dealt with in subsequent

paragraphs of this Report and are enclosed separately.

27. A copy of the Memorandum of Action Taken on the Report of the

Justice M.B. Shah Commission of enquiry on illegal mining in the

State of Goa, Ministry of Mines is enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-9

(Vol.1) to this Report.

 19

28. The CEC has not received any response from the MoEF on the

issues discussed in the meeting held on 21st November, 2012 and / or

the information in respect of balance items (for which it had stated that

the same would be sent). The CEC has received representations from

about 60 lease holders on the issues raised during the meeting.

29. As stated earlier, Mr. P.V. Jayakrishnan, Chairman, CEC and

Mr. Mahendra Vyas, Member, CEC carried out site visit of the mining

leases between 28th October, 2012 to 31st October, 2012. During the

site visit a number of mining leases was inspected and detailed

discussions were held with the Chief Secretary, Goa and other senior

officers of the State of Goa, a large number of lease holders and

others. A copy of the photographs, provided by the petitioner to the

CEC and captioned “Mining Impact on Goa’s Environment & Public

Health” is enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-10 (Vol.2) to this Report.

OBSERVATIONS

30. After considering the relevant information and the submission /

details provided by the Petitioner, the MoEF, the Ministry of Mines, the

State of Goa, the Associations, the individual lease holders and

others, the following relevant issues have been identified by the CEC:

I. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCES GRANTED FOR THE

MINING LEASES LOCATED WITHIN THE NATIONAL PARKS
/ WILDLIFE SANCTUARIES.

II. MINING LEASES LOCATED WITHIN 1 KM FROM.

 20

III. MINING LEASES LOCATED WITHIN 10 KMS FROM THE

BOUNDARIES OF THE NEARBY NATIONAL PARKS /
WILDLIFE SANCTURAIES.

IV. MINING LEASES BEING OPERATED IN FLAGRANT

VIOLATION BY PERSONS OTHER THAN THE LESSEES.

V. COMPLETE LACK OF CONTROL ON PRODUCTION AND

TRANSPORTATION OF MINERAL FROM THE MINING
LEASES, ILLEGAL MINING, OVER BURDEN DUMPS
OUTSIDE THE LEASE AREAS AND ASSOCAITED ISSUES.

VI. ILLEGAL MINING BY WAY OF ILLEGAL MINING PITS AND

ILLEGAL OVER BURDEN DUMPS OUTSIDE THE
SANCTIONED LEASE AREAS.

VII. PRODUCTION OF IRON ORE BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE

QUANTITIES BY THE MINING LEASE HOLDERS.

VIII. INFRASTRUCTURE INADEQUATE FOR THE PRESENT

LEVEL OF MINING.

IX. OTHER ISSUES.

Each of these issues have been dealt with in the subsequent

paragraphs.

31. Pursuant to this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 14th February, 2000

in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 and subsequent orders mining,

including the mining leases which were granted earlier, within the

National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries is prohibited. The Ministry of

Environment and Forests (MoEF), in view of the orders of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, has consistently taken the stand that mining (and

other non-forest uses) is not permissible within the National Parks /

Wildlife Sanctuaries. The MoEF in this context has issued a circular

dated 4th May, 2001 advising the State Governments not to submit

proposals for diversion of forest land in National Parks / Wildlife

 21

Sanctuaries without seeking the prior permission of this Hon’ble Court

(copy enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-11 (Vol.3) to this Report).

32. Not withstanding the above, the MoEF have granted the

environmental clearances in respect of at least 19 mining leases

located within the Netravali Wildlife Sanctuary and other sanctuaries.

The lease-wise details are given in the statement enclosed at

ANNEXURE-R-12 (Vol.3) to this Report. Copies of the Environmental

Clearances are collectively enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-13(Colly.

Vol.3) to this Report.

33. As per the information provided by the State of Goa (i) out of the

19 mining leases the TC No. 31/58, 67/51, 6/53 and 17/52 (at Sr. No.

3,5,7 and 9 of the statement at annexure R-12 of this Report) fell

partly within the Sanctuary. In addition to the above said 19 mining

leases, the environment clearance for one more mining lease (TC

No.55/53) falling within the National Park / Sanctuary has been

granted by the MoEF. (ii) three of such mining leases (TC No. 20/51,

31/55 and 55/53) have operated in one or more years during the last

five years. The balance 17 mining leases have not operated during the

last five years.

34. In this context it is relevant to mention that the State

Government had filed I.A. Nos. 24 and 26 in Writ Petition (Civil)

No.337/1995 seeking permission of this Hon’ble Court for exclusion of

certain areas including the areas under the mining leases from the
 22

Netravali Wildlife Sanctuary. This Hon’ble Court by order dated 12th

March, 2004 dismissed these IA’s. Thereafter the State Government

in January, 2006 appointed a retired Forest Officer on contractual

basis for settlement of rights under the provisions of the Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1976 and who passed orders to exclude 56 mining

leases from the Sanctuary. The State Government has taken the

stand that the decisions taken by the Forest Settlement Officer to

exclude mining lease areas (and other areas) from the Sanctuary will

be given effect to only after obtaining permission of this Hon’ble Court.

The CEC has filed a Report dated 30th March, 2009 before this

Hon’ble Court regarding the deletion of mining leases areas from the

Netravali Wildlife Sanctuary. The said Report, listed at I.A. No.2580, is

pending for consideration before this Hon’ble Court. The CEC in its

Report has stated that there has been gross misuse and abuse of the

provisions of law to facilitate backdoor entry for mining after the

permission sought by the State of Goa to exclude a large chunk of

areas from the Netravali Wildlife Sanctuary was rejected by this

Hon’ble Court and that such exclusion of areas from the Sanctuary for

mining will severely compromise its integrity leaving the sanctuary like

a moth eaten map and will de facto nullify the orders passed by this

Hon’ble Court. A copy of the annexure-R-1 of the CEC Report dated

30th March, 2009, giving details of the leases lying within the Netravali

Wildlife Sanctuary is enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-14 (Vol.3) to this

Report. A map showing the location of these leases vis-à-vis the

 23

Netravali Wildlife Sanctuary and other Sanctuaries / National Parks is

enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-15 (Vol.3) to this Report.

35. The Goa Forest Department vide letter dated 21st May, 2010 of

Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (copy enclosed at

ANNEXURE-R-16 (Vol.3) to the Report) informed the MoEF that even

though Environmental Clearance (EC) have been granted by the

MoEF to the nine mining leases stating that the Competent Authority

have deleted these leases from the proposed Netravali Wildlife

Sanctuary, the matter of deletion is pending in the Supreme Court

and final judgment is awaited and the applications in all the above

cases for approval under the FC Act have so far not been received.

36. It is seen that:

i) the MoEF, in apparent violation of this Hon’ble Court’s

order dated 14th February, 2000 and notwithstanding the

stand consistently taken by it that no mining is permissible

within the National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries, granted

Environmental Clearances to at least 19 mining leases. As

per the information provided by the State of Goa three of

such mining leases have operated in one or more years

during the last five years;

ii) in a number of Environmental Clearances the locations of

the mining leases have been shown to be outside the

sanctuary whereas the mining leases are located within

 24

the Sanctuary. Even after the correct position was brought

to its notice, the environment clearances were not

cancelled / withdrawn;

iii) even if the MoEF was of the view that the mining leases

are located outside the sanctuary the environmental

clearances should not have been granted as (a) this

Hon’ble Court’s order dated 4th August, 2006 prohibits

mining within a distance of 1 km from the National Parks /

Wildlife Sanctuaries and (b) each of the environmental

clearances have been granted after considering the report

of the Environment Impact Assessment Studies (EIA

Studies). Such studies must have revealed the adverse

impact of the mining on the integrity of the Sanctuary,

wildlife habitat, flora and fauna.

37. In these circumstances the CEC is of the considered view that it

is imperative that the environmental clearances granted by the MoEF

in respect of these 19 mining leases located within the Wildlife

Sanctuaries (and for other similarly placed leases) should be set aside

and responsibility should be fixed against the erring officers and

others.

II. MINING LEASES LOCATED WITHIN 1 KM FROM THE

NATIONAL PARKS / WILDIFE SANCTURAIES
 25

38. This Hon’ble Court by its order dated 4th August, 2006 in I.A. No.

1403 and other I.As. in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 (TWP matter)

has inter alia passed the following directions regarding the mining

operations in and around National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries:

“ xx xx xx xx

PRE-CONDITIONS:

i) T.W.PS. can only be granted for renewal of mining leases,

and not where the lease is being granted for the first time to

the applicant user agency;

ii) The mine is not located inside any National Park / Sanctuary

notified under Section 18, 26-A or 35 of the Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972;

iii) The grant of the T.W.P. would not result in any mining activity

within the safety zone around such areas referred to in (ii)

above, (as an interim measure, one kilometer safety zone

shall be maintained subject to the orders that may be made in

I.A. No. 1000 regarding Jamua Ramgarh Sanctuary)”

39. In view of the above directions of this Hon’ble Court, with effect

from 4th August, 2006 onwards, no mining operations including under

Temporary Working Permissions (TWPs) are permissible within a

distance of one kilometer of National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries. The

MoEF has never taken a stand to the contrary. Yet environmental

 26

clearances have been granted by the MoEF at least in respect of 23

mining leases located within a distance of 1 km from the nearby

National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries. The lease-wise details are given

in the statement enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-17 (Vol.3) to this Report.

The copies of the environment clearance are collectively enclosed at

ANNEXURE-R-18(Colly. Vil.3) to this Report.

40. The Environmental Clearances for 12 mining leases, out of 23,

were granted prior to this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 4th August, 2006

(and have apparently not been cancelled till date) while the

environmental clearances in respect of the remaining 11 mining

leases have been granted after this Hon’ble Courts order dated 4th

August, 2006. The lease-wise details of production, as provided to the

CEC by the IBM, are given at ANNEXURE-R-19 (Vol.3) to this Report.

It is seen that except for the two mining leases all the remaining 21

mining leases have operated after 4th August, 2006 and in violation of

this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 4th August, 2006.

41. As per the information provided by the State of Goa to the CEC:

(i) in addition to the above, eight more mining leases fall

within one km of the National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary;

(ii) One of the mining lease falls beyond one km;

(iii) 23 of the mining leases (including 3 mining leases located

within the National Park / Wildlife Sanctuary) have

 27

operated in one or more years during the last five years.

The year-wise production details provided by the State of

Goa are given at ANNEUXRE-R-20 (Vol.3) to this Report.

42. A copy of the note-sheet, of the State of Goa, relating to the

legal opinion regarding mining operations within 1 km of the National

Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries is enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-21 (Vol.3)

to this Report. The State of Goa, based on the above legal opinion,

has taken the stand that this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 4th August,

2006 does not prohibit mining operations within a distance of 1 km

from the National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries.

43. I.A.Nos. 170-175 in W.P.(C) No. 460 of 2004 have been filed

before this Hon’ble Court by M/s. V.M. Salgaocer & Bros. seeking

permission for the operations of the mining leases located within 1 km

from the Bhagwan Mahavir Wildlife Sanctuary. This Hon’ble Court by

order dated 18th September, 2009 and after receipt of Report of the

Standing Committee, National Board for Wildlife (a copy of the

minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee dated 12th

December, 2008 is enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-22 (Vol.3) to this

Report) directed the matter to be examined by the Forest Advisory

Committee and to file its Report for consideration of this Hon’ble

Court. The FAC expressed its inability to recommend mining

operations within 1 km from the National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries

and recommended rejection of the proposals under the FC Act for all

the six mining leases examined by it. The MoEF vide letters dated 21st
 28

April, 2010, 29th April, 2010, 3rd May, 2010 and 13th August, 2010

informed the State Government about the decision taken by the FAC.

The MoEF’s letters are collectively enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-23

(Colly. Vol.3) to this Report. This Hon’ble Court has not passed any

directions in modification of the order dated 4th August, 2006. The

CEC in its Report dated 30th September, 2009 in Writ Petition (Civil)

No.21/2008 has taken the stand that mining operations can be

allowed to be resumed by the State of Goa but only after ensuring that

the mines are not located within a distance of 1 km from the boundary

of the nearby National Park / Wildlife Sanctuary.

44. In the representation dated 26th November, 2012 filed before the

CEC by M/s. V.M. Salgaocer & Bro. Pvt. Ltd. it is stated that (i) the

Hon’ble Court’s order dated 4th August, 2006 is applicable only in

cases where TWP;s are sought by the lessees; (ii) operations at

Sancordem Malpine mine are held in abeyance since 21st November,

2007 ( mining leases at S.No. 20-23 of the statement) and (iii) the

distance of TC No.50/53 and 13/55 (at Sr.No.24 and 25 of the

statement) has been clarified by the Forest Department to be 1.1 km

and 1.5 km respectively. In support, copies of the two proformas

signed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, North Goa Division

have been filed before the CEC and which are collectively enclosed at

ANNEXURE-R-24(Colly. Vol.3) to this Report. (As per the

information now provided to the CEC by the State of Goa, these

mining leases are located with one km).

 29

45. The CEC, in the above background, is of the considered view

that:

(i) after 4th August, 2006 the MoEF should not have granted

the Environmental Clearances for mining leases located

within a distance of 1 km from the boundaries of the

nearby National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries.

Environmental Clearances granted prior to 4th August,

2006 to such mining leases should have been withdrawn;

(ii) after 4th August, 2006 the MoEF and the State of Goa

should not have permitted the mining operations within a

distance of 1 km from the National Parks / Wildlife

Sanctuaries;

(iii) the environmental clearances and other statutory

approvals for such mining leases should be set aside; and

(iv) the responsibility for allowing mining operations (in at least

23 mining leases) should be fixed and follow-up action be

taken.

III. MINING LEASES LOCATED WITHIN 10 KMS FROM THE

BOUNDARIES OF THE NEARBY NATIONAL PARKS /
WILDLIFE SANCTURAIES.

46. The issue regarding eco-fragile / eco-sensitive zone / safety

zone around the National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries is pending

 30

under consideration for the last many years. In the meeting of the

Indian Board for Wildlife held on 21st January, 2002 under the

Chairmanship of the Hon’ble Prime Minister the ‘Wildlife Conservation

Strategy – 2002’ was adopted and which inter alia envisaged that the

land falling within 10 kms. of the boundaries of National Parks and

Sanctuaries should be notified as eco-fragile zones under the

Environment (Protection) Act. Accordingly, the MoEF asked the State

Governments to send detailed proposals for notifying such areas as

eco-sensitive areas under the provisions of the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986. Subsequently, in the meeting of the National

Board for Wildlife held on 17th March, 2005, it was decided (in

modification of the decision earlier taken by the Indian Board for

Wildlife) that eco-sensitive zones should be site specific and should

relate to regulation rather than prohibition of specific activities. The

MoEF has accordingly been interacting with the State Governments

so that the latter send proposals for notifying Eco-sensitive Zones

around National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries.

47. This Hon’ble Court by its order dated 4th August, 2006 has

directed that as an interim measure 1 km around National Parks /

Wildlife Sanctuaries would be the Safety Zone. Further this Hon’ble

Court by its order dated 4th December, 2006 in Writ Petition (Civil)

No.460/2004, while giving a last opportunity to the States / UT’s to

forward proposals for declaring Eco-sensitive Zones, directed that all

cases where Environmental Clearances (EC) under the EIA

 31

Notification, 2006 have been given by the MoEF (for projects located

within 10 km of the National Parks / Sanctuaries) be put up to the

Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife.

48. In view of this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 4th December, 2006

the Environmental Clearances granted for the mining leases located

within a distance of 10 kms. from the nearby National Parks / Wildlife

Sanctuaries (and also other projects) are to be placed by the MoEF

before the Standing Committee, NBWL and the Environmental

Clearances become operative only after the same are cleared by the

said Committee.

49. In the affidavit dated 26th October, 2012 filed on behalf of MoEF

in I.A. No.1000 regarding Eco-sensitive Zones (ESZ) / Safety Zones,

the MoEF has taken an unequivocal stand that in all the cases where

the site specific Eco-sensitive Zones have not been proposed by the

State and notified by the MoEF the proposals pertaining to

development activities requiring environment clearance (located within

10 km of the National Park / Sanctuary) are being received from the

CWLWs along with the recommendations of the State Board for

Wildlife / State Government and are being placed before the Standing

Committee, NBWL for recommendations before the environment

clearance is made effective. Thus, in effect in such cases, an Eco-

sensitive Zone is operative in 10 km. area around all protected areas.

It has also been stated that presently the MoEF has been pursuing a

regulatory regime for recommendation of the Standing Committee,

 32

NBWL for the projects requiring Environmental Clearances if located

within 10 kms. area surrounding the protected areas in all areas where

ESZ have not been notified. The present system of seeking clearance

of Standing Committee of NBWL is based on extant legal provisions;

and the process of consideration of the Standing Committee of NBWL

squarely links in an objective way the regulatory process to the

conservation of wildlife. For ready reference a copy of the above said

affidavit dated 26th October, 2012 is enclosed (without enclosures) at

ANNEXURE-R-25 (Vol3) to this Report.

50. The Wildlife Division of the MoEF in its letter dated 30th May,

2011 addressed to the Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of Goa,

while dealing with one of the mining lease located within 10 kms. of

the National Park / Sanctuary, took the stand that the Standing

Committee, NBWL is the Competent Authority for grant of approvals in

such cases (and not the CWLW, Goa). Accordingly, the office of the

Additional Principal Chief Conservative of Forest vide his letter dated

23rd September, 2011, cancelled the approval granted by the Chief

Wildlife Warden concerned to the mining lease holder. Copies of the

letter of the MoEF dated 30th May, 2011 and the letter dated 23rd

September, 2011 of the Goa Forest Department are collectively

enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-26 (Colly. Vol.3) to this Report.

51. There are about 120 mining leases located within a distance of

10 km from the National Park / Sanctuary for which Environmental

Clearances have been granted by the MoEF. This is in addition to the

 33

19 mining leases located within the Sanctuary and the 23 mining

leases located upto a distance of 1 km from the National Parks /

Wildlife Sanctuaries. The details are given at ANNEXURE-R-27

(Vol.3) to this Report. Copies of the Environmental Clearances for the

first 21 mining leases (at Sr.No.42 to 63 of the list) are collectively

enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-28 (Colly. Vol.3) to this Report. Out of the

120 mining leases, as many as 78 mining leases have been operating.

The remaining about 42 mining leases have not been operating (refer

production details provided by the IBM at annexure-R-19 (Vol.3) to

this Report).

52. As per the information provided by the State of Goa to the CEC

out of these 120 mining leases as many as 103 mining leases actually

fall within 1 to 10 km, one lease falls within the Sanctuary itself, 8

leases fall within one km of the National Park / Sanctuary and another

8 leases fall beyond 10 km. Out of the 103 mining leases 74 are

working mining leases and the remaining 29 are non-working mining

leases. In addition another 10 ‘working’ mining leases also fall within

10 km of the National Park / Sanctuary. The lease-wise details of the

84 working mining leases falling within 10 km, together with details of

the 23 working mining leases, falling within 1 km of the National Park /

Sanctuary provided by the State of Goa, are given at ANNXURE-R-29

(Vol.3) to this Report.

53. The MoEF vide its letter dated 27th February, 2007 addressed to

the Regional Office, MoEF, Bangalore sought the details of all the
 34

mining leases (and other projects) located within 10 kms. of the

National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries and which have been granted

Environmental Clearances since January, 2004 onwards so as to refer

the same to the NBWL in compliance with this Hon’ble Court’s order

dated 4th December, 2006. The Regional Office of the MoEF at

Bangalore, in response, vide letter dated 10th October, 2011

addressed to the Adviser, MoEF provided the details of the

environmental clearances granted to the mining leases located within

10 kms. of the National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries. (copy enclosed at

ANNEXURE-R-30 (Vol.3) to this Report). As per the above said report

of the Regional Office, in 142 cases Environmental Clearances have

been granted for the mining leases located within 10 kms. of National

Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries (these include mining leases located

within the Sanctuary and within 1 km of the Sanctuary) the break-up

being 49 cases prior to 4th December, 2006 and 93 cases (plus for

expansion of the projects in 5 cases) after 4.12.2006. The further

break-up of the Environmental Clearances (ECs), based on the

stipulated conditions, is as under:

I. EC’S GRANTED PRIOR TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT ORDER DATED 4TH DECEMBER, 2006.

(a) prior approval of CWLW stipulated cases - 23

(b) ECs being subject to approval of CWLW cases - 8

(c) clearance from the Standing Committee, NBWL

(stipulated while granting further expansion of the
project on 24.12.2009) - 1
 35

(d) none of the above 3 conditions stipulated cases

- 17
Total - 49 cases

II. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE GRANTED AFTER THIS

HON’BLE COURT’S ORDER DATED 4TH DECEMBER, 2006 :

(a) approval of Competent Authority under Wildlife

(Protection), Act stipulated cases - 61

(b) approval of CWLW, stipulated - 01

(c) permission of NBWL stipulated - 06

(d) none of the above 3 conditions stipulated - 25

Total - 93 cases

54. The CCF (Central), MoEF Regional Office in the above said

letter stated that (i) the environmental clearances of the cases in

which mining is taking place without the approval of the CWLW /

NBWL need to be kept in abeyance and appropriate action initiated;

(ii) action needs to be initiated in respect of the case in which mining

has been carried out prior to the approval of the CWLW; (iii) in order

to ensure that the mining does not take place without the approval of

the competent authority (i.e. Standing Committee, NBWL), the MoEF

may consider keeping all the 61 environment clearances in abeyance

with immediate effect and make them effective from the date of

approval under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 by the competent

authority (by the Standing Committee, NBWL); (iv) in respect of TC

No.24/57, it is to be examined if there is need to modify the present

conditions and to stipulate the approval of the Standing Committee,

 36

NBWL; (v) in respect of six cases, the MoEF may look into whether

the clearance should be made effective from the date of approval of

the Standing Committee, NBWL and (vi) the MoEF may review the

ECs in respect of 24 mining leases to stipulate the condition of

approval of the Standing Committee, NBWL.

55. The MoEF, instead of placing the Environmental Clearances

before the Standing Committee of the NBWL and / or taking action on

the submissions made by the Regional Office, MoEF regarding

modifying the conditions of the environmental clearances so that they

become operative only after clearance by the Standing Committee,

NBWL, vide its letter dated 19th January, 2012 addressed to its

Regional Office, Bangalore stated that it had through DAVP issued a

public Notice during December, 2008 regarding Hon’ble Supreme

Court’s order and that it had also addressed a letter dated 6th January,

2012 to the various departments / agencies of the State Government

of Goa and the Chairman, CPCP requesting them to take action, unit

by unit against all those units operating in violation of the various acts

and rules. Copies of the above said letters dated 19th January, 2012,

December, 2008 and 6th January, 2012 of the MoEF are collectively

enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-31(Colly. Vol.3) to this Report.

56. It is seen from the details provided to the CEC that ultimately out

of 162 mining leases located within 10 kms. of National Parks /

Wildlife Sanctuaries, except four cases of the mining leases falling

within one km of the Sanctuary (which were considered by the

 37

Standing Committee pursuant to this Hon’ble Court’s order in I.A.

No.170-171 in W.P.(C) No. 460/2004 and dealt with in earlier

paragraphs) and probably two other cases, none of the remaining 156

cases (including 19 located within the National Parks / Wildlife

Sanctuaries and another 19 located within a distance of 1 km) have

been placed before the Standing Committee, NBWL. The mining

operations were allowed to continue.

57. It is also seen from the mining lease-wise production details

provided by the IBM that most of the production of iron ore has taken

place from the mining leases located within 10 kms. of the National

Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries (refer annexure R-19 (Vol.3) to this

Report). From the details provided by the State of Goa also it is seen

that out of 118 working mining leases only 11 mining leases are

located beyond 10 km of the National Park / Sanctuary (A copy of the

statement provided by the State of Goa giving details of all the 118

working mining leases is enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-32 (Vol.3) to this

Report). The leases located beyond 10 km are at S.Nos. 3 to 7, 23,

36, 58, 61,66 and 104 of the list and which have been encircled.

58. After the stand taken by the MoEF in its letter dated 30th May,

2011 that the Standing Committee, NBWL is the competent authority

for grant of approval and consequent withdrawal of the permission for

the mining lease by Goa Forest Department vide its letter dated 23rd

September, 2011 (dealt with in the earlier paragraph of this Report)

the concerned lessee, namely Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd., filed

 38

WP(C) No. 633 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Goa

against the impugned order dated 23rd September, 2011 of the

Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. From the Hon”ble

High Court’s order dated 17th September, 2011 it is seen that the

Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Goa made a

statement before the Hon’ble High Court that the said impugned order

shall be withdrawn and appropriate orders shall be passed by the

State Govt. within a period of one week. Thereafter the Writ Petition

was allowed to be withdrawn. The Government of Goa, Forest

Department vide letter dated 30th May, 2012 issued directions to the

Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to issue No Objection

Certificates without referring the same to the National Board for

Wildlife and to communicate to the MoEF the stand of the State

Government that the Chief Wildlife Warden being the statutory

authority is competent to issue NOC without referring the cases to the

NBWL. Copies of the above said order dated 17th September, 2011 of

the Hon’ble High Court and letter dated 30th May, 2012 of the State

Government are collectively enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-33(Colly.

Vol.3) to this Report.

59. It is seen from the above that, in violation of this Hon’ble Court’s

order dated 4th December, 2006, the Environmental Clearances

granted to at least 156 mining leases were not placed before the

Standing Committee of NBWL. Except in 6 cases, the other

Environmental Clearances did not even stipulate that the

 39

Environmental Clearances are subject to clearance by the Standing

Committee, NBWL. At least in 61 cases, Environmental Clearances

(EC) were granted stipulating that the EC is subject to the approval of

the competent authority under the Wildlife (Protection), Act even

though there is no provision under the Wildlife (Protection) Act for

grant of approval for the mining leases located outside the National

Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries. The MoEF by its various actions and

inactions de facto ensured that mining operations in a large number of

mining leases continue to take place in violation of directions of this

Hon’ble Court. Regular monitoring of implementation of the conditions

on which the Environmental Clearances granted was being done by

the MoEF through its Regional Offices. However, in none of the cases

the MoEF took steps to stop the mining operations. The State of Goa,

disagreeing with the stand subsequently taken by the MoEF, took the

stand that the approval of the Standing Committee, NBWL is not

necessary and allowed the mining operations to continue.

60. It is also seen from the stand taken by the MoEF in the affidavit

dated 26th October, 2012 filed before this Hon’ble Court (dealt with

earlier) that it was fully aware of the fact that each case wherein

Environmental Clearance has been granted is required to be placed

before the Standing Committee of NBWL and that such Environmental

Clearances become operative only after the same is cleared by the

said Committee. However, in sharp contrast to the above stand, in

practice almost all the mining projects for which EC’s have been
 40

granted by the MoEF have not been placed before the Standing

Committee and in the meanwhile the mining operations have been

allowed to continue. The decision earlier taken by the MoEF to place

such cases before the Standing Committee was reversed on an

untenable ground that the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have

been brought to the notice of all concerned through a public

advertisement. Incidentally, in different EC’s different conditions have

been stipulated.

61. The CEC is of the considered view that had the MoEF faithfully

implemented this Hon’ble Court’s orders dated 14th February, 2000, 4th

August, 2006 and 4th December, 2006 the unregulated and the

environmentally unsustainable manner in which mining has taken in

Goa would have been avoided.

62. The CEC, in the above background, is of the considered view

that (a) all EC’s granted for mining leases located upto a distance of

10 kms. from the National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries (excluding for

the mining leases located within the National Parks / Wildlife

Sanctuaries and within a distance of 1 km which have separately

been recommended to be set aside) should be directed to be held in

abeyance; (b) in all such cases the EC’s should be directed to be

considered by the Standing Committee of NBWL in accordance with

this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 4th December, 2006 and the

unequivocal stand taken (in affidavit) by the MoEF itself; (c) the Addl.

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Regional Office, MoEF,

 41

Bangalore may be directed to verify, after examining the EIA / EMP

reports (based on which the EC’s have been granted) and other

relevant details that the mining operations will not have adverse

impact on the flora, fauna or wildlife habitat and that the distance of

the National Parks / Wildlife Sanctuaries and the status of the ‘forest’

have correctly been stated in the EC / application for seeking EC’s;

and (d) this Hon’ble Court may consider taking a decision regarding

these EC’s after considering the recommendations of the Standing

Committee, NBWL, the report of the Addl. PCCF (Central) and other

relevant information / details.

IV. MINING LEASES BEING OPERATED IN FLAGRANT

VIOLATION BY PERSONS OTHER THAN THE LESSEES.

63. As stated earlier, under section 4 of the Abolition Act, 1987 the

mining concessions granted in perpetuity under the 1906 decree of

the Protégées Government have been converted into deemed mining

leases under the MMDR Act, 1957. The details of the erstwhile

concession holders and who became the lease holders of the deemed

mining leases are provided in the First schedule and Second schedule

of the Abolition Act, 1987. As provided under section 4(3) of the said

Act, any error, omission or misdescription in relation to the particulars

of a mining concession or the concession holder can be modified only

by issue of a notification by the Central Government.

 42

64. The sub Rule (1), Rule 37 of the MCR, 1960, reproduced below,

prohibits the transfer of the mining leases without the previous written

consent of the State Government:

“37. Transfer of lease-(1) - The lessee shall not, without the

previous consent in writing of the State Government [and in the

case of mining lease in respect of any mineral specified in [Part

A and Part B of] the First schedule to the Act, without the

previous approval of the Central Government]-

(a) assign, sublet, mortagage, or any other manner,

transfer the mining lease, or any right, title or interest

therein, or

(b) enter into or make any [bona fide] arrangement,

contract or understanding whereby the lessee will or

may be directly or indirectly financed to a substantial

extent by, or under which the lessee’s operations or

undertakings will or may be substantially controlled

by, any person or body of persons other than the

lessee”:

65. Under sub Rule (3), Rule 37, MCR, 1960, reproduced below, the

State Government is empowered to determine any lease found by the

State Government to have committed breach of the above provision:

 43

“(3) The State Government may, by order in writing determine

any lease at any time if the lessee has, in the opinion of the

State Government, committed a breach of any of the provisions

of sub-Rule(1) [or sub Rule (1A) ] or has transferred any lease or

any right, title, or interest therein otherwise than in accordance

with sub Rule (2).

Provided that no such order shall be made without giving

the lessee a reasonable opportunity of stating his case”.

66. In view of the above legal provisions, lease holders are

prohibited from entering into or executing any agreement, contract,

general power of attorney etc by which the ownership and / or the

control of the mining lease de-facto gets transferred from the lease

holder and / or the mining operations are substantially controlled or

financed by others. Any agreement / contract / power of attorney etc

entered into / executed by the lease holder with other person(s) as a

result of which a person(s) other than the lessee becomes liable /

responsible to incur the expenditure towards the payment for the

raising of mineral, associated over head and other expenditure, royalty

etc and / or becomes entitled to receive the whole / part of the sale

proceeds of the mineral and income thereon would be in violation of

the Rule 37(1) of MCR, 1960 and the lease would become liable for

determination by the State Government. This would effectively mean

that wherever the expenditure associated with the raising and sale of

mineral, the sale proceeds and the income / loss from the mining
 44

operations are not being reflected in the books of accounts / income

tax returns of the lessees but that of another person(s), in such a case

it can prima facie be held that the mining lease is being operated in

violation of Rule 37(1) of MCR, 1960 and is liable for determination.

67. It may be relevant to mention that the State of Goa has in the

past at least in one case determined the mining lease, on account of

the lease having been found to have violated Rule 37, MCR, 1960. In

this regard, a copy of the order dated 3rd June, 1991 of the

Department of Mines, Government of Goa published in official Gazette

on 15th June, 1991 (provided by the petitioner) is enclosed at

ANNEXURE-R-34 (Vol.4) of this Report. It may be seen that in this

case, the State of Goa decided to determine the mining lease on the

ground that the lessee had entered into an agreement with a company

for raising the ore from the mining lease and thereby had violated

Clause (b) of the sub Rule (1) of the Rule 37 of the MCR, 1960.

68. As per the information provided by the Petitioner, a very large

number of mining leases are being operated by person(s) other than

the lease holders and in flagrant violation of the Rule 37(1) of MCR,

1960. In this regard the following documents have been filed before

the CEC by the petitioner:

i) statement showing details of the mining leases operating

in violation of the Rule, 37, MCR, 1960, including under

the power of attorneys (the details of such leases are

 45

highlighted in the statement) - enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-

35 (Vol.4) to this Report;

ii) the lease wise details of TC No. 10/51, 110/53, 12/53,

14/52, 62/51 and 75/52 allegedly involved in violation of

Rule, 37. MCR, 1960 and other serious illegalities /

irregularities - collectively enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-36

(Colly. Vol.4) to this Report;

iii) statement showing details of 11 mining leases allegedly

owned / operated by Fomento Group Companies -

enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-37 (Vol. 4) to this Report;

iv) copy of complaint dated 12th September, 2011 filed by the

petitioner before the Controller of Mines (IBM) regarding

alleged violation of section 6 of MMDR Act, 1957 by M/s

Salgaokar Mining Industries Pvt. Ltd. along with list of 72

mining leases enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-38 (Vol.4) to

this Report;

v) copy of complaint dated 17th August, 2011 filed by the

petitioner before the Controller of Mines (IBM) regarding

alleged violation of section 6 of the MMDR Act, 1957 by

M/s Sesa Goa Limited - enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-39

(Vol.4) to this Report);

 46

vi) copies of Director, Mines and Geology letter dated 14th

October, 2011 addressed to M/s Megnam Minerals, stated

to be a fully owned subsidiary of a corporation registered

in British Columbia, Canada regarding agreement alleged

to have been entered into by it with Shri Ajit Kadnekar

regarding TC Nos. 75/52 and 12/53 along with letter dated

12th December, 2011 addressed to Mr. Ajit Kadnekar, copy

of annual report for the financial year ended on 31st

December, 2010 of M/s Terra Nova Royalty Corporation,

British Columbia, Canada, details of M/s Magnam

Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s MFC Industries Ltd. and the

show cause notice dated 9th April, 2012 issued to Mr. Ajit

Kadnekar - collectively enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-40

(Colly. Vol4) to this Report; and

vii) copy of the note sheet of the Department of Mines,

Government of Goa dealing with TC No. 14/52 - enclosed

at ANNEXURE-R-41 (Vol.4) to this Report.

69. On examination of the details provided by the Petitioner and

other details it is seen that a very large number of mining leases are

prima-facie operating in flagrant violation of Rule, 37, MCR, 1960 in

the State of Goa. Complaints have been made to the State

Government with regard to a number of leases that the said leases

were being operated by person(s) other than the lessees but

apparently no effective action has been taken even though under the
 47

the MCR, 1960 for violation of the Rule, 37, a very severe penalty i.e.

determination of the mining lease itself has been provided. On the

contrary the State of Government took the stand that the working of

the mining leases by a person other than the lease holder is a

prevailing mining practice in Goa and that these facts are in the

knowledge of the Government. The case of TC No. 14/52, dealt with in

subsequent paragraphs, vividly highlighted the manner in which

allegations of mining leases being illegally operated by person(s) other

than the lease holder were dealt with by the State of Goa.

70. The concession TC No. 14/52 was granted to Badrudin Bhavani,

of Margao, an individual on 22nd February, 1952 (refer S.No. 211 of

the chart of the mines granted at page 6, annexure-R-1 of the Report).

The said concession became a deemed mining lease under the

Abolition Act, 1987. In the First schedule of the Abolition Act, 1987,

the name of the concession holder is also stated to be Badrudin

Bavani, of Margao (refer S.No. 134 of the First schedule of the

Abolition Act, 1987 at annexure-R-2 to this Report).

71. Presently, the said mining lease is being operated in the name

and style of a partnership firm namely M/s Badruddin HussainBhai

Mavani. As per the copies of the balance sheets of the said

partnership firm filed before the CEC in the financial year ending 31st

March, 2011, M/s Timblo Pvt. Ltd., Radha S. Timblo and Chetan

Timblo were the partners in the said firm and had share in the net

profit / loss in the ratio of 55%, 30% and 15% respectively. During the
 48

financial year ending 31st March, 2012 the partners are M/s Timblo

Pvt. Ltd. and Radha S. Timblo and their share in the net profit / loss is

in the ration of 95% and 5% respectively. Mr. Chetan S. Timblo was

not a partner after 31st March, 2011. Copies of the balance sheets

filed before the CEC by the said partnership firm are collectively

enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-42 (Colly. Vol.4) to this Report.

72. The mining lease has been renewed for a period of 20 years

with effect from 2nd September, 1987 upto 21st November, 2007. The

lease deed has been executed on 8th April, 2008 between the State of

Goa and the said partnership firm represented by Mr. Chetan Satish

Timblo. A copy of the lease deed, provided to the CEC by the said

partnership firm, is enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-43 (Vol.4) to this

Report.

73. On examination of the note sheet of the State of Goa enclosed

at annexure-R-41 (provided by the Petitioner) and the above two

documents provided by the said partnership firm, the following serious

illegalities are seen:

i) the mining concession was granted in the name of

Badrudin Bavani (an individual). It became a deemed

mining lease with Badrudin Bavani being the lease holder

(an individual). No notification has been issued under

section 4(3) of the Abolition Act, 1987 for the change in the

name of the lease holder. The State of Goa has not

 49

passed any formal order for the transfer of the mining

lease from an individual to a partnership firm. However,

the mining lease has been operated by a partnership firm

for the last many years. The first renewal of the mining

lease has been approved by the State of Goa in the name

of a partnership firm namely M/s Badrudin Hussain Bhai

Mavani (the name is almost identical to that of the lease

holder). The lease holder has neither any financial stake

nor any control in the said partnership firm. M/s Timblo

Pvt. Ltd. and Radha S. Timblo are the partners in the said

partnership firm. Thus the ownership of the said mining

lease has been illegally taken over by the Timblo family.

The State of Goa was fully aware of the serious illegalities

involved. However, instead of taking punitive action in

accordance with the law, it disregarded the serious

illegalities and chose to grant the renewal of the mining

lease in favour of the partnership firm owned and under

control of Timblo family. This involved very serious

illegalities and should not have been permitted;

ii) the violation of Rule, 37 MCR, 1960 was brushed aside by

the State Government by taking the stand that as per the

prevailing mining practice such type of arrangement are

existing in Goa whereby the mining leases are worked by

a person other than the lease holder and these facts are in
 50

the knowledge of the State Government and that the

present case is therefore not unusual in that sense;

iii) a general power of attorney dated 12th January, 1979 was

executed by Mr. Mawani (the name stated in the First

schedule of the Abolition Act, 1987 is Mr. Bavani) in favour

of Mr. M.P. Kudchadkar and Mr. Subash F. Bhandari. The

said Power of Attorney authorised them to enter into

contracts for extraction of mineral, sale of mineral, transfer

of the mining lease etc. The Law Department of the State

of Goa took the stand that by virtue of the above said

Power of Attorney the working and control of the mining

lease has been entrusted to the attorneys and which is in

violation of Rule, 37 of MCR, 1960 and therefore action for

the determination of the lease may be initiated. However,

no effective action for determination of the lease was

taken;

iv) the ownership and control of the said lease by the Timblo

family (through the partnership firm) was justified by them

by producing before the State Government another Power

of Attorney dated 5th November, 1997, stated to have been

executed by Mr. Mavani in favour of Smt. Radha S.

Timblo. In the said Power of Attorney it is mentioned that

Mr. Mavani is staying in Karachi, Pakistan. The said

document was not registered or notarised or signed in the

 51

presence of witness. As stated in the noting of 5th

December, 2008 of the Special Secretary (Development)

the signature of the Mr. Badrudin Hussain Bhai Mavani in

this Power of Attorney does not tally with the earlier

signature done on the earlier General Power of Attorney

executed in 1979. The General Power of Attorney and

other similar documents signed abroad and received in

India are required to be routed through the District

Magistrate / verified by the Indian Embassy / Consulate

and which has not been done in the present case. Mr.

Mavani is stated to have died in Pakistan. No information

about the place and date on which Mr. Mavani died in

Pakistan was available with the State Government. On the

face of it, the said General Power of Attorney was in

blatant violation of Rule 37 MCR, 1960. In the above

circumstances, the above said document stated to be

irrevocable General Power of Attorney should not have

been accepted by the State of Goa at all;

v) based on the General Power of Attorney dated 5th

November, 1997 (whose genuineness and legality and

veracity is highly doubtful), Smt. Radha Satish Timblo in

her capacity as the General Power of Attorney holder of

Mr. Mavani and on behalf of Mr. Mavani, executed a deed

of partnership dated 10th August, 1988 and by which she

 52

along with M/s Timblo Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Chetan Satish

Timblo became the partners in the said partnership firm

namely M/s Badrudin Hussain Bhai Mavani. In another

Deed of Partnership dated 27th March, 2002 Mr. Abdul

Sultan Mavani (son of Mr. Mavani) was included as a

partner in place of Mr. Mavani, stated to have died. The

date of his death is not mentioned in the partnership deed.

This was also not brought to the notice of the State

Government. None of the above two partnership deeds

were registered. By another Reconstitution of Partnership

Deed dated 7th April, 2005 Mr. Abdul Sultan Mavani is

stated to have retired from the partnership. This

partnership deed is signed by Mr. Anup Mahatme in his

capacity as the Power of Attorney holder of Mr. Abdul

Mavani. This was also not a registered deed. Copy of the

said Power of Attorney was not available with the State

Government. These partnership deeds, in addition to

being highly dubious, are in clear violation of the Rule 37,

MCR, 1960 and should never have been accepted by the

State Government;

vi) earlier a Special Civil Suite was filed on behalf of Mr.

Abdul Sultan Mavani on 12th August, 2004 and which was

apparently not opposed by the respondents namely M/s

Timblo Pvt. Ltd. and the partnership firm. In a record time

 53

an order dated 19th October, 2004 was passed accepting

that Mr. Abdul Sultan Mavani is one of the partners of the

firm alongwith M/s Timblo Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Chetann Satish

Timblo. The State Government should have strongly

contested the said order as the mining lease was in the

name of an individual and not in the name of the

partnership firm at all; and

vii) as per the documents available with the State Government

Mr. Kudchadkar was appointed as General Power of

Attorney holder for the said partnership on 18th January,

2005. The General of Power of Attorney earlier being held

by him for Mr. Mavani was annulled on 5th November,

1997 and in his place Smt. Radha Satish Timblo was

appointed as the General Power of Attorney holder.

However, he signed the documents on behalf of the said

partnership firm in the year 2003 and which prima facie

show that the documents are forged. This was brought to

the notice of the State Government but no action was

taken.

74. From the above, it is seen that the mining lease was granted in

the name of an individual and who had migrated to Pakistan and died

there. He was never involved in operating the mining lease or seeking

renewal of the mining lease. The mining lease has been allowed to be

operated illegally by a partnership firm comprising of M/s Timblo Pvt.

 54

Ltd., Smt. Radha S. Timblo and others. The mining lease has been

renewed by the State of Goa in favour of the partnership firm owned

and controlled by Timblo family by disregarding and in blatant violation

of Rule 37, MCR, 1960 and on the basis of an unregistered Power of

Attorney, stated to have been executed by the lessee while staying in

Pakistan and whose genuineness and validity was highly dubious and

doubtful. Even though all the facts in the matter were available with

the State Government it chose to ignore them and the lease granted in

favour of an individual was illegally allowed to be converted into a

partnership firm owned by Timblo family.

75. Unfortunately the above case is not an isolated case. There are

many more cases involving serious violation of Rule 37, MCR, 1960.

For example, the mining concession TC No. 12/53 was granted to

Voicunta Canecar, of Margao and has become a deemed mining

leases under section 4 of the Abolition Act, 1987 (refer S.No. 207 of

the First schedule of the Abolition Act, 1987). On the perusal of the

documents provided by the Petitioner it is seen that the environmental

clearance for the mining lease has been granted in favour of M/s Ajit

Kadnekar and that the mining lease was being operated by M/s

Magnum Minerals, which is a fully owned subsidiary of M/s Teera

Nova Royalty Corporation registered in British Colombia, Canada

(refer annexure-R-36 (Colly) and annexure-R-40 to this Report). As

per the Justice M.B. Shah Commission Report, the environmental

clearance for the above said mining lease was granted without
 55

stipulating the clearance by the Standing Committee of the National

Board for Wildlife, the renewal of mining lease has been done without

obtaining approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the

delay in filing of the renewal application has been illegally condoned

and the lease is involved in encroachment beyond the lease area by

way of illegal mining pits. Mr. Ajit Kadnekar claims to be a owner of

the lease. However no formal order for transfer of the lease in his

favour has ever been issued. The mining operations after the issue of

the show cause notice to him by the State of Goa have ceased from

10th April, 2012 onwards.

76. In the above case, the operation of the mining lease has been

done in violation of the Rule 37, MCR, 1960 and that too by a

subsidiary of a Company registered abroad. M/s Magnum Minerals is

also alleged to have been operating TC No. 75/52. In this case also

Mr. Ajit Kadnekar claims to be the owner of the lease even though

apparently the State Government has not passed any formal order for

transfer of the lease in his favour. A number of other serious violations

are also stated to have taken place in this lease.

77. As stated earlier, the petitioner has stated that 11 mining leases

are owned and being operated by the Fomento Group of Companies

(refer annexure-R-37 of this Report). A number of representations

have been filed before the CEC stating that the mining leases are not

being operated by M/s Fomento Group of Companies but by

themselves. These include the representation dated 24th November,

 56

2012 filed before the CEC by M/s Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is

stated that TC No. 62/51 is not being operated by M/s Fomento Group

of Companies but by it. In support the copies of the annual returns

(Form No. H1) filed by it for the financial year ended on 31st March,

2007 onwards have been filed. A copy of the above said

representation dated 24th November, 2012 is enclosed at

ANNEXURE-R-44 (Vol.4) to this Report. The above said company

has also filed another representation dated 26th November, 2012

regarding the differences between the closing stock and opening stock

of the mineral in the annual returns. A copy of the above

representation, without enclosure, is enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-45

(Vol.4) to this Report. On examination of these Forms No. H1, it is

seen that:

a) in the Form No. H1, the name of the lessee is mentioned

as M/s Mineira National Leda and the name of the owner

is mentioned as Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. At S.No. 5 he is

also mentioned as the Raising Contractor;

b) the opening stock as well as closing stock of the ROM

mineral for the financial year 2006-2007 are mentioned as

“nil” which is practically not feasible;

c) in the grade wise production details, the quantity of lumps

and fines produced are mentioned as 1.05 lakh MT and

4.5 lakh MT respectively. The same quantities are shown

 57

to have been dispatched. However, while the opening

balance is mentioned as 0.66 lakh MT and 0.65 lakh MT

respectively, the closing balance have been mentioned as

0.38 lakh MT and 0.29 lakh MT respectively. If the

complete production had been dispatched during the year

then in that case the opening stock and the closing stock

should have been one and the same;

d) in the Form No. H1 for the financial year 2009-2010 the

closing stock of ROM mineral from the open cast workings

is mentioned as 18.30 lakh MT and for the dump working

as 42.50 lakh MT. The opening balance for the next

financial year should have been same. However, in the

Form No. H1 for the financial year 2010-2011 the opening

stock for the open cast workings as well as dump working

have been shown as “nil”. The above said serious

discrepancy has been justified by him in the

representation by stating that the closing stocks were only

potential quantities of interminate grade and the company

had its own reservations about reporting such figures of

stock of ROM mineral since such mineral could not be

conclusively determined as ore. Therefore in the

subsequent year the opening stock and closing stock is

shown as “nil” (as was done in earlier year). This line of

argument is not acceptable at all particularly considering

 58

that in the same annual return the production of ROM by

open cast working has been shown to be 6.99 lakh MT;

e) in the Form No. H1 for the financial year 2011-2012, the

entire quantity is shown to have been sold for domestic

consumption to Sociedade De Fomento Industries Pvt.

Ltd. at the rate of 46.50 (presumed to be rate per MT)

whereas the cost of production is shown to be Rs. 180.04

per MT; and

f) in the Form No. H1 for the financial year 2011-2012 also

the entire production is shown to have been sold for

domestic consumption to Sociedade De Fomento

Industries Pvt. Ltd. @ Rs. 46.50.

78. After considering the details given in the above said annual

returns the CEC is of the view that prima-facie the said mining lease is

being operated in violation of Rule, 37 of MCR, 1960 (for which a

detailed enquiry needs to be held) and that the details of the

production and dispatch figures of the mineral are not reliable at all.

79. M/s Lithoferro has filed representation dated 23rd November,

2012 before the CEC stating that the TC No. 89/52 is being operated

by it and not by M/s Fomento Group or by Infrastructure and Logistic

Pvt. Ltd. A copy of the said representation is enclosed at ANNEXURE-

R-46 (Vol.4) to this Report. As per the Aboliton Act, 1987 the lease

holder of TC No. 89/52 is Sociedade Lithoferro Ltd. whereas the said

 59

Petitioner is a partnership firm. The relationship between the two

needs to be verified. Further, from the details provided in the annual

returns it is seen that in the year 2007-2008 a quantity of 11577 MT

lumps and 77166 MT of fines were dispatched from the mine head.

However the quantity sold / dispatched for domestic consumption as

well as for the export is shown to be nil. Similarly for the financial year

2008-2009 a quantity of 50383 MT of lumps and 270023 MT of fines

are shown to have been dispatched whereas quantity sold /

dispatched for domestic consumption as well as for exports is shown

to be nil. For the year 2009-2010 though the quantity dispatched is

shown as 7229 MT of lumps and 261857 MT of fines, the quantity and

sale value for domestic consumption is shown to be nil. The quantity

for exports is shown as nil. However the FOB value is mentioned as

Rs. 45,35. For the year 2010-2011 the quantity dispatched is

mentioned as 20958 MT of lumps and 58,494 MT of fines. The

quantity used for domestic consumption is not mentioned. However,

its sale value is shown to be Rs. 306. No details are mentioned

against the exports. These details do not inspire any confidence in the

genuineness of the production and dispatch details provided in the

returns filed by the lease holders.

80. The CEC is of the considered view that prima facie a large

number of mining leases are being operated by the person(s) other

than the lease holders and in flagrant violation of Rule 37, MCR, 1960.

In a number of cases, the mining leases were granted in favour of

 60

individual previous and have been converted into partnership firms

and which are owned by influential persons. The State of Goa has not

taken any effective steps in the matter.

81. In view of the above, the CEC is of the view that it would be

appropriate that the details of all the mining leases in the State of Goa

are verified with reference to the available records and wherever there

are reasonable doubts that the mining lease is / was being operated

by a person other than the lease holder detailed enquiry should be

held. For this purpose, if required the concerned lease holder may be

asked to provide the year wise details of the expenditure incurred by

him towards the cost of raising mineral, payment of royalty etc, the

sale price received by him and the gross income and the net income

from the mining lease for the last five years. In respect of the mining

leases for which such details are not received from the respective

lease holder and / or are not found to be reliable the statutory

clearances given for the mining lease should be held in abeyance and

the mining operations should not be allowed to be restarted till a

detailed enquiry is carried out. In respect of the mining leases which

are found to have operated in violation of Rule 37, MCR, 1960, the

process of the determination of the leases in accordance with the legal

provision should be taken in a time bound manner.

V. COMPLETE LACK OF CONTROL ON PRODUCTION AND

TRANSPORTATION OF MINERAL FROM THE MINING
LEASES, ILLEGAL MINING, OVER BURDEN DUMPS
OUTSIDE THE LEASE AREAS AND ASSOCAITED ISSUES.
 61

82. In the other major iron producing states, such as Karnataka and

Orissa, the lessees are required to periodically file the production

details of the iron ore (and other mineral) and which are then verified

by the authorized officers of the Mining Department. Thereafter, the

lessees deposit the royalty for the various grades of lumps and fines

after which the transit permits are issued by the Mines Department for

transportation of specified quantities of iron ore from the mining lease

to designated places. In addition, in the State of Karnataka the

vehicle-wise forest permits are issued for the mining leases located in

forest areas. The transportation of the mineral is not permissible

without a valid transit permit. The quantity of mineral for which the

permits are issued are required to be transported within the stipulated

period. The iron ore under transit is verified at the strategically located

check posts and if any variation in the quantity of the iron ore being

transported is found with reference to the quantity for which valid

permits have been issued, in such a case the mineral become liable

for seizure. The exact quantity of iron ore that has been legally

extracted and transported from each of the mining lease can be

ascertained on the basis of the details of the quantities for which the

royalty has been paid and the transit permits have been issued.

83. Unlike the other major iron ore producing States, no such

system exists in the State of Goa. There is no system of periodic

verification of the iron ore produced in the mining leases, payment of

royalty after such verification, issue of permits for transportation of

 62

mineral by the Mining Department, issue of transit permits by the

Forest Department, reconciliation of the quantity of the mineral stated

to have been produced in the mining lease with the quantity of the

mineral for which royalty has been paid and transit permits have been

issued, verification of the transit permits at the check posts,

verification of the quantity of the mineral exported/domestically used

vis-à-vis the quantity legally produced. There is absolutely no system /

Rules in existence for checking / verification the actual quantity of the

iron ore produced and transported from the mining leases.

Consequently, illegal mining can easily be undertaken outside the

mining lease areas and which can conveniently be shown to have

been done legally in the lease area.

84. Under the provisions of the MMDR Act, 1987 and the rules

made there under, the lessees are required to file Monthly Returns

and Annual Returns (Forms F-1 and H-1) with the IBM with copies to

the Mines Department of the State Government. There does not

appear to be any effective system in place for verifying the details

given in the Annual Returns with the Monthly Returns and the details

given in the Annual Returns with the quantities of mineral for which

royalty has been paid, transported, exported and other details. In a

number of returns the details of the opening balance plus production

minus dispatch do not tally with the closing balance. The quantity of

ROM mineral used during the month / year does not tally with the

production details of the lumps and fines. The closing balance of a

 63

month / year does not tally with the opening balance of the next month

/ year.

85. The year-wise details for the year 2006-07 to 2010-11 of the

total quantities of the iron ore produced as per the information

provided by the IBM to the CEC and which is based on the returns

filed by the lease holders (refer annexure R-19 (Vol.3) of this Report)

and the total quantities of Goan Iron Ore exported, as provided by the

Goan Mineral Ore Exporters’ Association (refer annexure R-3 (Vol.1)

of this Report), are as under:

(in Lakh MT)

Year Goan Iron Total Excess of

Ore Exports Production exports over
production

2006-2007 308.940 277.931 31.009

2007-2008 334.334 300.091 34.253

2008-2009 380.752 315.994 64.758

2009-2010 456.869 331.649 125.22

2010-2011 468.464 328.059 140.405

Total 1949.369 1553.724 395.645

86. From the details above it may be seen that as against the total

production of 1553.724 lakh MT. of iron ore between 2006-07 to 2010-

11 a total quantity of 1949.369 lakh MT of iron ore of Goan origin has

been exported i.e. the total quantity of iron ore exported is 395.645

lakh MT more than the total quantity of iron ore reported to have been
 64

legally produced. In addition part of the iron ore produced has been

used for domestic consumption. There is every reason to believe that

the excess quantity of iron ore that has been exported is the illegally

mined iron ore.

87. As stated earlier, the State of Goa is totally dependent on the

returns filed by the lessees to assess the lease-wise details of the iron

ore produced. It does not have an independent and reliable data

collection system. The IBM also totally depends on the production

details provided in the returns filed by the lessees. It would therefore

be reasonable to expect that the lease-wise production details

available with the State Govt. will match with that available with the

IBM. It will also be reasonable to expect that such details will also

match with the returns filed by the lessees. However, neither the

production details provided from time to time by the State of Goa tally

with those provided by the IBM nor do they tally with the returns filed

by the lessees. In addition, there are significant discrepancies in the

production and dispatch details provided in the returns filed by the

lessees. In the above background there is no reliable information

available either with the State of Goa or the IBM regarding the year-

wise / lease-wise production and dispatch details.

88. The difference between the quantity of iron ore transported for

exports (and domestic use) and the reported quantities of production

has been justified by a number of the lease holders stating that a large

quantity of iron ore has been produced by extracting mineral from the
 65

overburden (i.e. the sub-grade iron ore which has now become

saleable). As per the lease-wise details contained in the MoEF’s letter

dated 10th October, 2012, by which the information under the RTI Act,

2006 was provided to the petitioner (copy enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-

47 (Vo.5) to this Report), in the year 2009-10 a quantity of 8.46 MMT

of iron ore has been produced from the overburden dumps by the

lease holders of 32 mining leases while in the year 2010-11 a quantity

of 13.52 MMT of iron ore has been produced from the overburden

dumps by the lease holders of 57 mining leases.

89. A copy of the note-sheet of the State of Goa dealing with the

extraction of minerals from the overburden dumps is enclosed at

ANNEXURE-R-48 (Vol.5) to this Report. The Learned Advocate-

General, Goa in his note dated 2.3.2011 has stated that removal of

mineral from the overburden dumps does not require environmental

clearance. The note was approved on 3.3.2011 by the competent

authority of the State Government. Accordingly, the State of Goa had

been taking the stand that the extraction of minerals from the

overburden dumps do not require environmental clearance.

90. The Ministry of Mines, Government of India vide its letter dated

25.10.2011 addressed to the Secretary, Department of Mines and

Geology, Goa (copy enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-49 (Vol.5) to this

Report) has inter-alia stated that the State Govt. may review the

arrangements in place (regarding extraction of mineral from

overburden dumps) to prevent illegally extracted ore to be passed off

 66

as ore taken out of dumps. The State of Goa was asked to inform

regarding the steps taken to ensure that the extraction of the ore from

the dumps are being systematically regulated and accounted for.

91. The Ministry of Mines, vide letter dated 2nd July, 2012 addressed

to the Principal Secretary (Mines) (copy enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-

50 (Vol.5) to this Report), stated that notwithstanding the opinion of

the Learned Advocate-General of the State it is of the opinion that

since the dumps are as a result of mining operations and that dump

handling involves impact on environment appropriate environmental

clearances and other clearances as part of the clearance of mining

operations of the identified owners of the dumps should be a pre-

requisite. The Indian Bureau of Mines vide letter dated 24th August,

2012 addressed to the Secretary (Mines), Government of Goa

(enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-51 (Vol.5) to this Report) stated that the

IBM is of the opinion that the dumps be classified only under two

categories on the basis of location i.e. (i) dumps within the mining

lease areas and (ii) dumps outside the mining lease areas. The dumps

within the lease areas are to be regulated in terms of the approved

Mining Plan. As regards the removal / handling of dumps outside the

lease area, considering that the iron ore is in the First Schedule any

policy decision of the State Govt. need to have prior approval of the

Ministry of Mines and other competent authority in Central

Government. Till then the State Govt. should not permit any dump

removal / mining activities in the State of Goa.

 67

92. The Ministry of Mines vide letter dated 7th September, 2012

addressed to the Principal Secretary (Mines), Government of Goa

(copy enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-52 (Vol.5) to this Report) stated

that the Ministry of Mines is strongly of the view that the State

Government of Goa should immediately restrict all activities of

removal of dumps located outside the lease area till an appropriate

mechanism is evolved and approval of Central Government is

obtained (in the Mining Plan for such dump removal activity).

93. Subsequently the Government of Goa vide letter dated 31st

August, 2012 addressed to the Indian Bureau of Mines and others

stated that the dumps handling in the State of Goa has been stopped

vide Circular dated 23rd September, 2011 (copy enclosed at

ANNEXURE-R-53 (Vol.5) to this Report). Earlier, the IBM, in

response to a RTI application, vide its letter dated 12th January, 2012

stated that the Mining Plan / Scheme of Mining does not accord any

approval for the overburden dumps or any other activity outside the

mining lease area. Such details with a view to enlighten the approving

authority are shown in the Mining Plan/Scheme of Mining (copy

enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-54 (Vol.5) to this Report).

94. The CEC is of the considered view that in view of (a) the

complete absence of an effective system of checks and balances

regarding the actual quantities of mineral produced and transported

from the mining leases and verification of the mineral during transit,
 68

(b) lack of reliable details of the legal and illegal overburden dumps

lying within the lease and outside the lease and (c) in the absence of

the reliable data regarding sub-grade mineral available in each of the

overburden dumps within the lease and outside the lease and also (d)

in the absence of any effective mechanism to regulate the working of

the overburden dumps, particularly lying outside the lease area, the

production details of the mineral stated to have been extracted from

the overburden dumps cannot be accepted.

95. The CEC does not agree with the contention of the State Govt.

that the extraction of minerals from the overburden dumps, lying within

the lease area or outside the lease area, is not a mining activity under

the provisions of the MMDR Act and therefore neither requires a

mining lease nor requires environmental clearance. As per Section

3(d) of the MMDR Act, 1957 “mining operations” mean any operation

undertaken for the purpose of mining any mineral. Section 4 provides

that the “mining operations” in an area can be undertaken only under

a mining lease granted under the Act and in accordance with the Act,

Rules and applicable conditions. If the contention of the State

Government that the extraction of the mineral from the overburden

dumps is not a ‘mining operation’ is accepted, in that case anyone will

be eligible (and not the lessee alone) for the extraction of mineral from

the overburden dumps containing saleable iron ore (which were earlier

not saleable) located within the mining lease area as well as outside

the lease area and even after the expiry of the lease period. Such
 69

extraction of mineral can be done by any person and not just by the

lease holder who had originally dumped the overburden. This will lead

to a chaotic situation. The extraction of mineral from the overburden

dumps without any checks and balances and without environmental

clearances are bound to cause serious environmental degradation

particularly considering that as per the State Government about 750

MMT of overburden dumps are available in the State. The lease

holders involved in illegal mining can always claim (and get away) that

the mineral has been extracted them from the overburden dumps and

it is therefore not illegally mined ore.

96. During the site visit, the CEC came across a massive dump at

Advai, stated to being operated by a group company of M/s Sesa Goa.

The dump, almost 2 km in length and about 90 m. in height, is said to

be the largest overburden dump in Goa. The dump has apparently

blocked the natural stream ‘Advai nallah’ and which used to flow

perennially and irrigated the nearby fields and orchards. The

photographs of the dumps are collectively enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-

55 (Vol.5) to this Report (also refer to the photo-graphs at internal

pages 34-36 of annexure 10 (Volume 2) of this Report). The said area

is stated to have been used for dumping the overburden/waste of the

Cosmi Costa Mine TC No.110/53 and which is at a distance of about 6

km from the Advai Nallah. The location and the extent of the above

said overburden dump is a potential environmental hazard and in the

event of its collapse because of heavy rains and other causes (which
 70

may not be very unusual or unlikely) it is bound to cause all round

devastation in the area. Such dumps should never have been

permitted.

97. The CEC is of the considered view that overburden/waste

dumps should normally be located within the mining lease itself. The

production of the mineral should be regulated in such a way that there

is adequate area available within the lease area itself for the

overburden / waste dumps. The permission for keeping the

overburden dumps outside the mining lease area should be granted

only in exceptional circumstances and not in a routine manner (the

“guidelines for preparation of the R&R Plan, for the mining leases in

Districts Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur, Karnataka”, approved by

this Hon’ble Court by order dated 13th April, 2012 prohibits overburden

dumps outside the lease areas). In any case overburden dumps

should not be allowed to be located outside the lease area without the

approval for the same by the competent authority of the State

Government, State and other statutory authorities (in Goa a large

number of overburden dumps are located outside the lease area and

for which requisite permissions from the State Government were not

obtained).

98. The extraction of mineral from the overburden dumps located

within the mining lease area should be strictly in accordance with the

approved Mining Plan / Scheme of Mining, consent to operate and

environmental clearance. The extraction of mineral from the

 71

overburden dumps outside the mining lease should be permitted only

after (a) identification of the ownership of the overburden dumps, (b)

assessment of the sub-grade mineral stocked separately in the

overburden dumps, (c) verification from the monthly and annual

returns filed by the lease holder that the overburden dumps actually

belongs to him and that the quantity of sub-grade iron ore available in

the overburden dumps has been mentioned in the returns filed by the

lease holder and (d) preparation of an environmentally sustainable

Scheme of Mining for the removal of mineral from the overburden

dumps and its approval by the statutory authorities. In respect of the

overburden dumps for which approval of the State Government and

other competent authorities was not obtained the lease holder should

not be held eligible / entitled to extract mineral from such dumps.

Instead through a transparent process such overburden dumps should

be assigned and mining operations should be allowed to be

undertaken after obtaining environmental and other statutory

approvals. The details of the mineral extracted should be provided in

the monthly and yearly returns filed by such assignees and the

transportation should be permitted only under valid transit passes and

after verification of the quantities extracted from the overburden

dumps.

99. The CEC is also of the considered view that in order to ensure

effective checks on the illegal mining and other illegalities it is

imperative that the State of Goa immediately puts in place an effective

 72

system of verification of the mineral produced from the mining leases,

issue of transit passes, verification of transit passes during transit of

mineral and reconciliation of the production with domestic

consumption and exports. Till then the mining leases should not be

allowed to resume mining operations.

100. It is seen from the details provided by the Ministry of Mines that

in a large number of cases the IBM has granted ex-post-facto

approvals for the Mining Plan / Scheme of Mining for the earlier years.

The details of the modified Mining Plan/Scheme of Mining approved

by the IBM from 2001-2002 onwards are given in the statement

enclosed at ANNEXURE-56 (Vol.5) to this Report. It is seen that in

respect of a number of mining leases the actual production was much

more than what was permitted as per the approved Mining Plan /

Scheme of Mining and which has subsequently been regularized by

the IBM by approving the modified Mining Plan / Scheme of Mining

(after the production has already taken place). The Ministry of Mines

has informed the CEC that the IBM has been asked to discontinue

such practice.

101. The Mining Plan/Scheme of Mining as per the provisions of the

MMDR Act, 1957 and rules made there under, is required to be

approved for each of the mining leases. Two or more mining leases

can operate as a single unit only after such mining leases are granted

permission for amalgamation under Rule 38, MCR, 1960. However, it

is seen that in respect of a number of mining leases consolidated

 73

Mining Plan / Scheme of Mining has been approved by the IBM.

Similarly the environmental clearances have been granted for a

cluster of mining leases. Apparently the combined Mining Plans were

approved by the IBM in accordance with a Circular dated 9th /12th

October, 1992 issued by the IBM (copy enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-57

(Vol.5) to this Report). The Ministry of Mines has informed the CEC

that the IBM has been asked to discontinue this practice and to

approve the Mining Plan / Scheme of Mining only lease-wise.

102. From the details provided to the CEC it is seen that the statutory

authorities have completely failed to ensure that the mining operations

are undertaken in a scientific and environmentally sustainable

manner. Even when the statutory authorities found illegalities /

irregularities, adequate remedial measures/deterrent action were not

taken by them. For example, the MoEF vide its letter dated 4th May,

2007 addressed to M/s. Mineria National Limited granted

environmental clearance for the expansion of Cuddegal Voril Soddo

iron ore mine (TC No.62/51) from 0.45 MTPA to 0.70 MTPA. The

environmental clearance was granted on the specific condition that it

is subject to clearance under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The

said project was monitored on 23rd January, 2010 by the Regional

Office of the MoEF. A copy of the Inspection Report of the Regional

Office, MoEF is enclosed at ANNEXURE-58 (Vol.5) to this Report. In

the Inspection Report it is stated that (a) mining was being done

beyond lease boundary, (b) the mining lease, along with another
 74

mining lease is being operated by M/s. Sociedadl de Fomlnto Ind. Pvt.

Ltd., (c) there is lot of difference in the minimum and maximum value

of SPM, (d) the project authorities have not submitted the Mining Plan

and the Progressive Mining Closure Plan duly approved by the IBM,

(e) the clearance under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 has so far

not been granted, and (f) between January, 2009 to December, 2009

about 7 lakh tones of overburden dumps was dumped outside the

lease area.

103. Thereafter the MoEF vide letter dated 27th September, 2010

issued a show cause notice under the Environment (Protection) Act,

1986 for violation of the provisions of the EIA Notification of 2006. In

the show cause notice it was stated that the Monitoring Report has

revealed non-compliance of several conditions stipulated in the

environmental clearance and that the serious violations included (a)

the IBM has not accepted the Mining Plan and the Progressive Mining

Closure Plan, (b) as per the statutory requirement, 7.5 meter width

around the boundary of the mine is either required to be left or for

working the common boundary necessary approval is required to be

obtained from DGMS and (c) prior Wildlife Clearance is not obtained.

It is seen that the mining lease is located within a distance of 10

km from the nearby National Park/Sanctuary and therefore pursuant to

this Hon’ble Court’s order dated 4th December, 2006, environmental

clearance should have been placed before the Standing Committee,

 75

NBWL. This was neither done by the MoEF nor it insisted for the

compliance by the Project authorities of this Hon’ble Court’s order.

104. The MoEF issued another show cause notice dated 7th

February, 2011 to M/s. Mineria National Ltd. The IBM has vide letter

dated 5th July, 2011 separately issued a show cause notice to M/s.

Mineria National Ltd. and M/s. Hardes Ores Pvt. Ltd. for the

production of iron ore beyond the permitted quantity and other alleged

illegalities. However, instead of taking any action for the serious

violations found to have been done by the lease holder (and others),

the MoEF vide letter dated 24.1.2012 addressed to the Secretary,

Department of Science & Technology and Environment asked the

State Government to take immediate action in the matter. Ultimately,

no action was taken by the MoEF against the lease holder in spite of

the Monitoring Report and other documents clearly establishing

serious violations.

Copies of the show cause notices dated 27th September, 2010

and 7th February, 2011 issued by the MoEF, show cause notice dated

5th July, 2011 issued by the IBM and MoEF’s letter dated 24th January,

2012 are collectively enclosed at ANNEXURE-R-59 to this Report.

VI. ILLEGAL MINING BY WAY OF ILLEGAL MINING PITS AND

ILLEGAL OVER BURDEN DUMPS OUTSIDE THE
SANCTIONED LEASE AREA.

105. The Report of the Justice M.B. Shah Commission of Enquiry

states that about 2796.24 ha of area has been found to be under

 76

encroachment by the lease holders and out of which about 578.42 ha

has been found to have been illegally used for illegal

extraction/removal of iron ore. A copy of Table I of the said Report

giving lease-wise details of the encroachments is enclosed at

ANNEXURE-R-60 (Vol.5) to this Report.

106. During the site visit undertaken by the CEC, some of the areas

stated to be under encroachments were visited. A number of lease

holders have filed representations against the findings of the Shah

Commission stating that they are not involved in any encroachment.

107. The CEC is of the view that it may be appropriate and necessary

that detailed survey and demarcation of all the mining leases is carried

out to ascertain the details of the area under illegal mining pits, illegal

overburden dumps and other details. In this context it is relevant to

mention that this Hon’ble Court by order dated 7th May, 2011 has

directed survey and demarcation of the mining leases in District

Bellary, Karnataka (and subsequently by another in Districts

Chitradurga and Tumkur). Pursuant to the above directions of this

Hon’ble Court, survey and demarcation of all the mining leases in

Districts Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur have been done by using

“total station” and under the supervision and direction of the Joint

Team constituted by this Hon’ble Court and the exact details of the

area under encroachment by way of illegal mining pits, overburden

dumps, illegal roads etc. have been ascertained. The findings of the

Joint Team have been accepted by this Hon’ble Court by order dated
 77

13th April, 2012. In view of the findings of the Shah Commission, it

may be appropriate that a similar exercise is directed to be carried out

in respect of the mining leases located in the State of Goa and

thereafter appropriate follow-up action may be considered to be taken.

VII PRODUCTION OF IRON ORE BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE

QUANTITIES BY THE MINING LEASE HOLDER.

108. The Ministry of Mines in their letter dated 25th October, 2011

addressed to the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Goa

(refer annexure R-49 (Vol.5) to this Report) have stated that between

2006-07 to 2009-10 44 mining leases had exceeded the targeted

production limits by more than 20%. (In terms of the Guidelines of the

IBM, upto 20% deviation in the production target provided in the

approved Mining Plan/Scheme of Mining is permissible). The IBM, in

terms of the provisions of the MMDR Act, is stated to have taken

action against 19 mining leases and has initiated action against the

balance 25 mining leases.

109. Unlike the Mining Plan / Scheme of Plan where upto 20%

deviation from the targeted production is permissible (in addition the

Ministry of Mines is stated to have advised that instead of year-wise

deviations cumulative deviations should be considered) the lease

holders are not permitted to undertake mining operations beyond the

quantity of iron ore for which the MoEF have accorded environmental

clearances. The CEC is of the view that it may be appropriate that

from 2005-2006 onwards the year-wise details of the production of the

 78

mineral for each of the mining leases is verified and wherever it is

found to have exceeded beyond the quantities permitted under the

environmental clearances, appropriate action should be taken for

violating the provisions of the EIA Notification of 2006. In addition the

consignor-wise details of the exports should be verified with the lease-

wise production details, as provided in the monthly and annual returns

filed by the lease holders and for the excess quantity of mineral (illegal

mineral) necessary follow-up action needs to be taken.

VIII. INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABLE INADEQUATE FOR THE

PRESENT LEVEL OF MINING.

110. The mining leases in Goa are mainly located in four talukas and

the area and population of each of these four talukas are as under:
 79

Name of the Area (in sq km) Population

Taluka

Bicholim 238.8 97,922

Sattari 489.46 63,754

Sanguem 836.82 65,035

Quepem 318.25 81,174

111. During the year 2010-11 about 468.46 lakh MT Goan iron ore

was exported. In addition, substantial quantities brought from other

states were also exported and some quantity was used for domestic

consumption. Presuming that on an average in each trip 10 MT of

iron ore is transported by the trucks, the movement of about 100 lakh

trucks will be required, (including for return journey) for transportation

of about 500 lakh MT of iron ore to the water ways and sites of the

steel and allied industries. For 300 working days in a year this would

imply daily movement of more than 30,000 trucks for the

transportation of iron ore and for the return journey by the empty

trucks. The existing infrastructure availability in Goa is grossly

inadequate to handle the movement of such a large number of trucks.

IX. OTHER ISSUES

112. As per the environment clearances granted by the MoEF to the

183 mining leases the total permitted production would work out to

around 65 Million MT per annum. In addition, there are a number of

other mining leases for which the terms of reference have been
 80

approved by the MoEF and the public hearings are in progress or

have concluded. The existing infrastructure facilities, the proven and

probable mineral reserves and the area available for overburden

dumps will under no circumstances permit such a level of mining in an

environmentally sustainable basis, There is therefore a real need to

prescribe a cap on the maximum permissible annual production from

all the mining leases located in each of the four talukas.

113. Pursuant to this Hon’ble Court’s orders dated 5th August, 2011

and 26th August, 2011 the Indian Council for Forestry Research and

Education (ICFRE), an autonomous body under the administrative

control of the MoEF has carried out macro EIA Studies regarding the

impact of mining in Districts Bellary, Tumkur and Chitradurga in the

State of Karnataka. After considering the Report of the ICFRE, this

Hon’ble Court has prescribed a ceiling of annual production 25 MMT

for the District Bellary and a ceiling of 5 MMT per annum for Districts

of Chitradurga and Tumkur. The CEC is of the view that it may be

appropriate that similar studies are directed to be carried out for the

State of Goa and based on the findings of the macro EIA Study the

maximum permissible annual production may be fixed for each of the

four Talukas in the State of Goa.

114. There are a large number of mining leases wherein the

extraction of mineral below the ground water table has been permitted

/ is being undertaken. During the site visit the CEC received a number

of representations that the mining below the ground level is adversely

 81

affecting the water availability in the nearby areas and such mining is

damaging the aquifers and consequently the charging of the ground

water is adversely affected. It has also been represented that such

mining is resulting in increased salinity of the ground water and that

the silt deposition from the mining overburden has degraded the soil

fertility in the adjoining agricultural fields. Almost all the dug wells have

dried up.

115. The CEC is of the view that it would be appropriate that the

mining below the ground water level is permitted only in exceptional

circumstances and with adequate checks and balances. The mining

operations below the ground water level should be permitted only after

a detailed study for such mining leases is carried out and it is

conclusively established that mining operations are not likely to

adversely affect the availability of potable water for the local

population and will not have any adverse environmental impact on the

water regime.

116. In a number of environmental clearances the status of the land

is mentioned as non-forest whereas the lease area comprises partly /

wholly of forest land. The Additional PCCF, Southern Region Office of

the MoEF may be asked to verify all the environmental clearances and

wherever the lease is found to contain forest land (but in the

environmental clearance / application for the environmental clearance

the status is mentioned as non-forest land) the environmental

 82

clearances should be kept in abeyance and appropriate action against

the concerned lessee and others should be taken.

117. The environmental clearances for the mining leases containing

forest land should become effective only after the grant of approval

under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for the non-forestry use of

the forest land.

118. During the site visit the CEC visited three mining leases located

in the forest areas falling in the catchments area of Selaulim Dam and

which meets the drinking water requirement of South Goa. During the

site visit a number of representations were received by the CEC

stating that the mining leases including the above three have been

contaminating the water supply in the reservoir thereby adversely

affecting the quality of potable water in the Dam.

119. In view of the sensitive location of the mining leases vis-à-vis the

catchment area of the Selaulim Dam which supplies drinking water to

the South Goa, it would be prudent that an indepth study is

undertaken by a reputed organization regarding the impact of the

mining on the Selaulim Dam and a decision for allowing such mining

leases may be taken only after considering the study report. Till then

the lessees should not be allowed to resume mining operations.

120. There are about 42 mining leases which had filed first renewal

applications after the due date and delay has been condoned by the

State Government (apparently without any authority). As per the

 83

information provided by the State Government 8 of such mining leases

have operated during the last 5 years (even though the applications

for the first renewal were filed beyond the stipulated time and were not

eligible to continue mining operations). The details of such mining

leases, provided by the State Government are enclosed at

ANNEXURE-R-61 (Vol.5) of this Report. The CEC is of the view that

it is imperative that all such orders of condonation of the delays are

reviewed and cancelled and that action against the erring officers /

others is taken. In any case such mining leases should not be allowed

to resume mining operations.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

121. From the above details it may be seen that the mining

operations in Goa have violated with impunity the relevant Acts, Rules

and Regulations and orders of this Hon’ble Court. The environmental

clearances, in a large number of cases, have been accorded for the

mining leases located within 1 km of the National Park / Sanctuary

and which are in violation of directions of this Hon’ble Court. In fact,

many of them were granted for the mining leases located within the

National Park / Sanctuary itself. A large number of such mining leases

have operated. The MoEF by its various actions and in-actions

ensured that the EC’s granted for the mining leases located within a

distance of 10 km of the National Park / Sanctuary remain effective

without the same being considered and cleared by the Standing

Committee, NBWL.
 84

122. While the IBM as well as the State Government were totally

dependent on the details mentioned in the monthly / annual returns

filed by the lease holder, there are substantial differences in the

production details maintained by the IBM and those provided by the

State Government (and which also vary from time to time). The total

quantity of iron ore exported during the last 5 years is much more than

the quantity legally produced. There is no system of issue of transit

passes or verifying the quantity of mineral produced in the mining

lease before the transportation takes place.

123. During the last two years more than 20 Million MT of iron ore is

stated to have been produced from the overburden dumps located

outside the mining lease areas without environmental clearance,

approved mining plan and / or approval of competent authorities.

There was no system of verifying the actual quantity of mineral

produced from such overburden dumps. In the prevailing situation it is

quite likely that a substantial part of such production was reported by

the concerned lease holders to cover the difference between the

quantity of iron ore exported by them and the quantity of iron ore

legally produced.

124. A very large number of mining leases were being operated by

persons other than the lessees and in flagrant violation of the

provisions of the MCR, 1960 and in all probability with the tacit

approval of the State Government. Based on the unregistered and

 85

dubious General Power of Attorneys and other documents, the mining

lease have been allowed to be operated by persons having clout by

treating the leases granted to individual persons as those granted to

partnership firms and the inclusion of such persons as partners in the

firms (and retirement of the genuine lease holders). Two of such

leases were being operated by the subsidiaries of a company

registered outside India.

125. The Mining Plans / Schemes of Mining have been approved for

a cluster of mining leases and which was not permissible. In a number

of mining leases the mining operations were being carried out below

the ground water level.

126. In respect of a large number of mining leases, the Shah

Commission had found that illegal mining by way of illegal mining pits,

illegal overburden dumps, etc. outside the sanctioned mining lease

areas has taken place.

127. As seen earlier the mining activity in the State of Goa is mainly

confined to four Talukas namely Sanguem and Quelpem in District

South Goa and Sattari and Bicholim in District North Goa. Since 2002

there has been a significant increase in the mining activity of Goa. The

export figures indicate that the production of iron ore rose from around

16.69 MT in 2002-2003 to 48.84 MT in the year 2010-2011. This sharp

increase in production has had a severe impact on the environment

and the ecology of Goa.

 86

128. Goa receives annual rainfall of about 5000 mm. It has 11 rivers

with 42 tributaries running across the mining leases. There are dense

evergreen and semi evergreen forests and forms part of the

internationally recognized biodiversity hot spots – the Western Ghats

region with rich flora and fauna.

129. The National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) in the 1980’s has

documented large scale mortality of clams and other fishes because

of the mining sediments, then estimated to be about 60,000 tons,

forming a thick blanket on the estuarine floors and which entered the

rivers from mining dumps and other related activities. This was when

the production of the iron ores was around 10 to 12 million tons per

annum. However, with the production of iron ore from the year 2009-

10 increasing to around 48 million tons per annum the sediment load

flowing into the river must be around 2 lakh tons a year with

consequential irreversible damage to the sensitive Rive Zuari and

Mandovi estuaries complex said to be the largest in the country.

130. The bulk of mining leases are in areas of forest or natural

vegetation and consequentially mining has taken a heavy toll of the

Goa’s natural vegetation and wildlife. Acute damage has also been

caused to the ground water aquifers because of indiscriminate mining

below ground water level which in turn have in several areas

adversely affected agricultural activities.

 87

131. The statutory Regional Plan for Goa has estimated that about

10,000 ha. of agricultural lands have been rendered unproductive and

out of use because of mining. The study carried out by NEERI

(National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nagpur) in

2010 on the impact of three mining leases in village Shirgao has

confirmed the destruction of ground water aquifers. Consequently

villages such as Shirgao, Pissurlem, Velguem and Surla now get their

water supply through tankers.

132. It is stated that about 26,000 trucks / dumpers used to move in

the narrow roads of the said four talukas thereby endangering the

health and safety of the people. In fact it has been reported that the

accidents caused by rampant and reckless overloaded trucks take at

least one life a week.

133. A report of The Energy Research Institute (TERI) indicates the

high prevalence of respiratory diseases among the residents of these

four talukas compared to those living in the coastal areas. The peace

and tranquility of the residents of these four talukas has been severely

affected because of indiscriminate mining and unregulated related

activities.

134. In the above background following recommendations are made

for consideration of this Hon’ble Court:

I. The environmental clearances granted by the Ministry of

Environment & Forests, Government of India (MoEF) for

 88

the 19 mining leases located within the Wildlife

Sanctuaries and for another 23 mining leases located

within a distance of upto 1 km from the boundaries of

nearby National Parks / Sanctuaries (and in other similarly

placed cases), being in violation of this Hon’ble Court’s

orders dated 14th February, 2000 and 4th August, 2006 and

subsequent orders, may be revoked by this Hon’ble Court.

The details are given at annexure-R-12(Vol.3) and

annexure-R-7(Vol.3) of this Report. The mining operations

in such mining leases may be prohibited.

II. The MoEF, may be directed, in compliance of this Hon’ble

Court’s order dated 4th December, 2006, to place the

environmental clearances granted for 120 mining leases

located within a distance of upto 10 kms of the National

Parks / Sanctuaries (excluding those dealt with at sub-

para I above) before the Standing Committee of the

National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) for its consideration

(and other similarly placed cases). The details are given at

annexure-R-27(Vol.3) of this Report.

III. The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,

Regional Office, MoEF, Southern Region, Bangalore may

be directed to verify, after considering the relevant

information and making appropriate enquires as deemed

necessary, that (a) the mining operations will not have

 89

adverse impact on the flora, fauna or Wildlife habitat and

(b) the distance of the National Parks / Wildlife

Sanctuaries and the status of the forest areas have

correctly been stated in the environmental clearances /

applications for seeking environmental clearances.

IV. This Hon’ble Court may consider taking a decision

regarding validity of such environmental clearances after

considering the recommendations of the Standing

Committee of the NBWL, the Report of the Additional

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Regional Office,

MoEF, Bangalore and other information / details. Till then

the such environmental clearances may be directed to be

held in abeyance.

V. The environmental clearances granted for the mining

leases comprising of wholly / partly forest land may be

directed to become operative only after the approvals

under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for non-forestry

use of the forest lands included in the mining leases are

granted and that till then all such environmental

clearances should be held in abeyance and the mining

operations may not be permitted to be resumed.

VI. The State of Goa may be directed to constitute a

Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary,

 90

Goa with (a) the Principal Secretary, Mines, Government

of Goa, (b) Additional Principal Chief Conservator of

Forests, Regional Office, MoEF, Southern Zone,

Bangalore and (c) an officer not below the rank of Joint

Secretary, to be nominated by the Secretary, Ministry of

Mines, Government of India as its Members.

VII. The said Committee may be directed to ascertain, after

considering the available records including the monthly

and yearly returns filed by the lease holder and the details

provided in the representations / complaints filed by the

Petitioner and others and after conducting appropriate

enquiries as deemed necessary, the details of the mining

leases which have been operated by persons other than

the lease holders and in violation of the Rule 37 (1) of the

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The Committee may be

directed to complete the above said exercise within a

period of three months and file the Report immediately

thereafter for the consideration of this Hon’ble Court. The

mining leases which are prima facie found to have been

involved in violation of Rule 37 (1) Mineral Concession

Rule, 1960 may not be permitted to resume mining

operations.

VIII. The State of Goa may be directed to take immediate

action for determination of the mining leases found to have

 91

been operating in violation of Rule 37 (1) of the Mineral

Concession Rule, 1960 in accordance with Rule 37 (3),

Mineral Concession Rule, 1960. The Chief Secretary,

Government of Goa may be directed to file every month an

Action Taken Report before this Hon’ble Court and till a

decision in respect of all such mining leases is taken.

IX. The State of Goa may be directed to immediately notify

comprehensive Rules to regulate the storage,

transportation and shipment of mineral and which should

inter-alia provide for issue of transit permits before the

mineral is permitted to be transported outside the lease

area, verification in transit and reconciliation of the mineral

exported and domestically used qua the quantity of

mineral legally produced. Till such comprehensive Rules

are put in place, the resumption of mining operations may

be not be permitted.

X. The State of Goa may be directed to ascertain the lease

wise details of the iron ore legally produced by the lease

holders from the year 2005-2006 onwards (after

considering the details provided in the monthly and annual

returns filed by them, the quantity of mineral for which the

royalty has been paid and other relevant details) qua the

consignor wise details of the iron ore of Goan origin

exported and used domestically and based thereon

 92

quantify the illegal iron ore exported by the consignors.

The Chief Secretary, Government of Goa may be directed

to file these details within a period of three months. This

Hon’ble Court may after considering the above Report and

other details may consider passing appropriate directions

for compensation payable by the persons found to be

involved in production, trade or export of illegal iron ore.

XI. The State of Goa may be directed that the extraction of

mineral from the overburden dumps located outside the

approved mining lease areas should not be permitted till

an environmentally sustainable Scheme of Mining for the

removal of mineral from overburden dumps is prepared

along with the relevant information regarding the

ownership of the dumps, realistic assessment regarding

mineral available (grade wise) in such dumps and

approved by the statutory authorities and permitted by this

Hon’ble Court.

XII. The survey and demarcation of all the mining leases in the

State of Goa may be directed to be carried out by a team

constituted by this Hon’ble Court to ascertain the details of

areas under illegal mining pits, illegal over burden dumps,

illegal roads etc outside the sanctioned mining lease

areas. After considering the finding of the above said

team, this Hon’ble Court may consider passing appropriate

 93

directions regarding compensation payable by the lease

holders found to be involved in illegal mining, cancellation

of the mining leases found to involved in substantial illegal

mining and punitive action against the erring officers and

others.

XIII. The Indian Council for Forestry Research and Education

(ICFRE), Dehradun may be directed to carry out Macro

Level EIA Studies regarding the impact of mining in the

State of Goa and to suggest Taluka-wise ceiling on

production from all the mining leases and file its Report for

consideration of this Hon’ble Court within three months.

The Terms of References (TOR) for the said study may be

directed to be framed by the MoEF.

XIV. The State of Goa may be directed to engage reputed

agency such as the Indian Council for Forest Research

and Education, Dehradun for preparation of the lease-wise

R&R Plans. The “guidelines for preparation of the R&R

Plans” approved by the this Hon’ble Court by order dated

13th April, 2012 for the purpose of preparation of the R&R

Plans for the mining leases in Districts, Bellary,

Chitradurga and Tumkur in the State of Karnataka may be

directed to be followed with appropriate modifications as

considered necessary and with the approval of this

Hon’ble Court.
 94

XV. The condonation of delays by the State of Goa in respect

of the mining leases for which the applications for first

renewal of the mining leases were not filed within the time

limit prescribed under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960

may be directed to be reviewed by the State of Goa and

cancelled if found to be not permissible. The details of the

officers and others found responsible for such lapses may

be directed to be placed before this Hon’ble Court for

appropriate directions. Such mining leases may not be

permitted to resume mining operation

XVI. The mining operation may be allowed to be resumed in the

State of Goa by the mining leases not found to be involved

in any illegalities only after (a) the Macro Level EIA study

Report of the ICFRE is received by this Hon’ble Court and

a decision regarding the Taluka wise ceiling on

permissible annual production from all the mining leases is

taken (b) the survey and demarcation of the mining leases

by the team constituted by this Hon’ble Court is completed

and (c) the R&R Plans are prepared and lease wise

permissible annul production are fixed after considering

the mineral availability, area available for over burden

dump and available infrastructure facilities particularly the

carrying capacity of the existing roads. The resumption of

mining operations by the mining leases found to be

 95

involved in illegalities including the violation of Rule 37 (1),

MCR, 1960 and working beyond the sanctioned mining

lease boundaries may not be permitted till a decision

regarding compensation payable by such lease holders is

taken and complied with and the preparation and

implementation of the R&R Plans is completed.

126. The CEC will be filing its recommendations in due course

regarding (a) the punitive action against the erring officials, other

public functionaries and others, (b) compensation payable by the

defaulting lease holders and others, (c) cancellation of the mining

leases which are found to be involved in substantial illegal mining and

other serious illegalities and (d) other issues (if any) which have not

been adequately dealt with in this report.

This Hon’ble Court may please consider the above

recommendations and may please pass appropriate order in the

matter.

(M.K. Jiwrajka)
Member Secretary

Dated: 7th December, 2012