Mining Dumps Cannot Be Treated At Par With Mining Leases U/S 10B Of MMDR Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Goa Iron Ore Dump Policy
The Court refused to mandate auction for dump mining in Goa, & clarified that handling ores on private land does not require fresh lease grant.
The Bombay High Court, Goa Bench has held that the statutory requirement for auctioning mining leases under Section 10B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, does not extend to the handling of mineral dumps. It clarified that mining dumps and mining leases are distinct legal categories, and the regulatory framework for extracting fresh minerals from the earth cannot be applied identically to the removal of inventoried ores lying on the surface of the land.
The Court dismissed a challenge to Policy for Regulating Iron Ore Dump Handling in the State of Goa, 2023, holding that dump handling on private land by erstwhile lessees is a permissible activity that does not necessitate the grant of a formal mining lease. The Bench emphasised that since the Supreme Court had already authorised the State to proceed based on Expert Committee recommendations, the requirement for a fresh lease or a competitive auction under the MMDR Act was not applicable to these specific mineral deposits.
Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Amit S. Jamsandekar noting at the outset that the Bench was not concerned with granting of mining leases but with disposal of dump mining created outside the Mining Lease, observed, “…it is apparent that the mining dumps so created are nothing but the dumps generated due to the mining activities carried out under an approved mining plans. Therefore, it must be presumed that the lease holder has already paid royalty with regard to the Iron Ore, if any, contained in the dumps. Under such circumstances, the plea of disposing of the dumps, through a fresh process of auction, in our considered opinion, does not hold to reason…”.
“…Rather, we are of the view that the mechanism prescribed under Clause 2(2) of the Policy of 2023 is not only fair and transparent but the same also adequately addresses the economic concerns of the State… In view of the definition of mining dumps as noted above, we are also not inclined to accept the Petitioner’s contention that the mining dumps are to be treated at par with the mining leases for the purpose of Section 10(B) of the MMDR Act, 1957”.
Senior Advocate Norma Alvares appeared for the petitioner and Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General, Senior Advocates S. D. Lotlikar, S. S. Kantak appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner, Goa Foundation, challenged the 2023 Dump Policy, specifically Clause 2(2), which allows ex-lessees to handle dumps located outside lease areas on private property.
The petitioner raised two core questions: whether the State can eliminate minerals in these dumps without an auction, and whether dump mining can be permitted without granting a mining lease for the land involved. It was argued that these dumps, worth approximately Rs. 10,000 crores, should be confiscated and e-auctioned by the State as the original leases had expired.
Following the Goa Foundation-1 (2014) and Goa Foundation-2 (2018) decisions, which declared mining activities after 2007 illegal, the Supreme Court directed an Expert Committee (EC) to recommend how to deal with mining dumps.
On December 13, 2022, the Supreme Court permitted the State to resume dump mining activities in accordance with the EC's report. The State subsequently notified the 2023 Policy to implement these recommendations.
Now, considering the existing norms and the policy in place, the Court noted that auction is a "preferable method" but not a "constitutional requirement" for all natural resources. It noted that the petitioner failed to challenge the EC's recommendations before the Supreme Court in 2022, and under Article 141, the High Court cannot tinker with an Apex Court order that allowed the State to follow that specific methodology.
Regarding the second issue, the Court held that since the dumps were created under previously approved mining plans and the policy requires payment of royalty and conversion fees, requiring a fresh auction or a new mining lease "does not hold to reason". It concluded that the policy adequately addresses economic concerns and is not arbitrary.
“It is no doubt correct that Section 10(B) of the MMDR Act of 1957 makes it mandatory for grant of mining lease in respect notified minerals thorough auction, which includes Iron Ore and Manganese Ore. However, in the present case, as noted above, we are not concerned with the grant of fresh mining lease, which issue was conclusively dealt with in Goa Foundation-1 and Goa Foundation-2 and appropriate directions issued therein. It is no doubt correct that in view of the decision in Goa Foundation-1, it is now settled that dump mining activities outside the Mining Area would be illegal. But the same, in our view, would not automatically lead to the conclusion that all mining dumps created outside the mining area, are liable to be confiscated and sold in public auction as no such direction has been issued in Goa Foundation-1 or Goa Fundation-2”, the Bench said.
“…it is not a case where the mining dumps have been permitted to be removed, as per Clause 2(2) of the policy of 2023, without following any transparent procedure. Clause 2(2) of the Policy of 2023 cannot be struck down by the Court merely on the ground that a better policy could have been framed by the State…we are of the view that the mechanism prescribed under Clause 2(2) of the Policy of 2023 is not only fair and transparent but the same also adequately addresses the economic concerns of the State.”, it noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation, stating that the reliefs sought could not be granted under the present facts and circumstances. No order was passed as to costs.
Case Title: The Goa Foundation v. The State of Goa & Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:1022-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Norma Alvares, Senior Advocate, Om D’Costa & Malisa Simoes, Advocates. F
Respondents: Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General, S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate, S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate, Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Pleader, Somnath Karpe with Anand Shirodkar & Samiksha Vaigankar, Sailee Kenny, Terence Sequeira, Sarvesh Sawant, Neha Shirgaonkar & P. Volvoikar through VC, Neha Kholkar & Saicha Desai, Joaquim Godinho, Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocates.