THE GOA FOUNDATION v. M/S SESA STERLITE LTD & Ors.

4.6 In this background, there is little to suggest that the State considered the requirements of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act in that the interests of mineral development was secondary while granting the second renewal of mining leases. The entire exercise undertaken by the State was a hasty charade, regardless of violations of the law by the mining lease holders, without any benefit to the Indian industry and without any concern for the health of the average Goan. [Para 116] [428-C]

4.7 It is informed that of the 88 mining leases that were renewed, 38 of them are not working for a variety of reasons – making their renewal an empty exercise. This also shows the undue haste shown by the State of Goa in granting a second renewal to the mining leases. [Paras 121, 122] [430-A-B]

4.8 It is possible that the State did have some serious governance issues to contend with as mentioned in the Grant of Mining Leases Policy. Nevertheless the State is bound by the law, however uncomfortable it might be in granting a second renewal in terms of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. Therefore, on an overall consideration of all aspects of the case, the decision of the State of Goa to quickly renew the mining leases while ostensibly complying with the requirements of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act and thereby jettisoning the rule of law was unjustified. [Paras 123, 124] [430-D-E, H; 431-A-B]

4.9 Thus, the second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa was unduly hasty, without taking all relevant material into consideration and ignoring available relevant material and therefore not in the interests of mineral development. The decision was taken only to augment the revenues of the State A B C D E F G H 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 2 S.C.R. A B C D E F G which is outside the purview of Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act. The second renewal of the mining leases granted by the State of Goa is liable to be set aside and is quashed. [Para 149] [440-B-C]

5.1 The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) was obliged to grant fresh environmental clearances in respect of fresh grant of mining leases in accordance with law and the decision of this Court in *Goa Foundation case and not merely lift the abeyance order of 14th September, 2012. [Para 149] [440-D] *Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 590 : [2014] 5 SCR 302; Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 738; State of M.P. v. Krishnadas Tikaram 1995 Supp (1) SCC 587 : [1994] 3 Suppl. SCR 747 – relied on. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1: [2012] 3 SCR 147; Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (2014) 9 SCC 516 : [2014] 8 SCR 446; M/s. Ajar Enterprises Private Limited v. Satyanarayan Somani 2017 (10) SCALE 346; Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India (1996) 9 SCC 709 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 808; Property Owners’ Association v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 7 SCC 522 – referred to.

5.2 The MoEF acted without any application of mind in lifting the order placing all the environmental clearances in abeyance. Since the entire exercise carried out by the MoEF on 20th March, 2015 was mechanical, at the behest of the State of Goa, without due application of mind, without considering the multiple illegalities and irregularities committed by the mining lease holders or passing on the buck to the State of Goa and without considering relevant material such as the report of the EAC and the Expert Committee appointed by this Court, the exercise of lifting the abeyance order on 20th March, 2015 by the MoEF must be held void and as directed by the Court in Goa Foundation case all the mining lease holders must obtain fresh environmental clearance for their mining project. [Para 136] [435- C-E]

5.3 Issues impacting society are required to be looked at holistically and not in a disaggregated manner. An overall H THE GOA FOUNDATION v. M/S SESA STERLITE LTD. & ORS. 371 perspective is necessary on such issues including issues that have impact on the environment and the people of a community or a region or the State. One or two violations here and there may be wished away as inconsequential, but multiple violations by several persons can result in serious problems. Therefore, the Mineral Policy, the Grant of Mining Leases Policy, the amendment to the MMDR Act, the report of the EAC and the report of the Expert Committee must be considered in the larger context of constitutionalism, the rule of law, environmental jurisprudence as well as the fundamental right of the people of Goa to have clean air and protection of the fragile ecology. Governance cannot and should not be carried out de hors the interests of the people and some uncomfortable decisions may be inevitable for balancing the equities. [Para 138] [436-B-E]

5.4 It is not correct to say that if environmental clearance is granted and mining operations commence within the five year period, then the environmental clearance under EIA 1994 is valid till the project or the mining lease period is over. Such a view overlooks the decisions in # M. C. Mehta case and ## Common Cause case which accept the view that the validity of an environmental clearance granted under EIA 1994 is only five years as also the view that a valid environmental clearance is necessary for the renewal of a mining lease. No notification of the MoEF can overrule decisions of this Court. As far as EIA 2006 is concerned, this provides that the environmental clearance would be valid for the estimated project life subject to a maximum of 30 years. [Para 145] [438-E-G]