The Goa Foundation v. The State of Goa & Ors.

Judgment

) :- 1.The Writ Petitioner is an Environmental Non GovernmentalOrganization (“NGO”) based in Goa and has been inter-aliaengaged in instituting legal proceedings before the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India as well as this High Court, espousing thecause of environment, wildlife, forests, pollution, mining laws,inter-generational equity and planned development of the State ofGoa. By filing the present PIL Petition, the Petitioner hasapproached this Court challenging the provision of Clause 2(2) ofPolicy For Regulating Iron Ore Dump Handling in the State of Goa,2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the Dump Policy of 2023”)framed by the State of Goa for dealing with dump mines bycontending that Clause 2(2) of the Policy permits handing overmining dumps to the ex-lessees who had illegally created themoutside the Mining Lease Area, without holding any auction, thusacting in a manner which not only contrary to the provisions ofPage 3 of 537th May 2026

PILWP-44-2024-JR.docMines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (forshort “MMDR Act 1957) but also the jurisprudence on eliminationof natural resources flowing from the various Judgments of theHon’ble Supreme Court. It has, however, been clarified that thechallenge made to Clause 2(2) of the Dump Policy is confined toonly the dumps created outside the lease areas, located onGovernment and private land and the inventoried dumps and,therefore, the remaining clauses of the Policy of 2023 are notunder challenge. The core questions raised in this Writ Petition are(i) whether the State of Goa can eliminate valuable mineralscontained in the mineral dumps without holding auction? and (ii)whether dump mining can be permitted without granting mininglease in respect of land where the dump is located? The Petitionerhas also challenged the “in-principle” approval dated 16th August2024, consent to operate, dated 12th November 2024, and thefinal approval dated 15th May 2025 granted in favour ofRespondent No. 4 as the first ex-lessee without holding auction orgranting any mining lease in the dump mine. Having regard to thenature of controversy involved in this PIL, it would be apposite toPage 4 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docbriefly trace the historical background of this case, evident fromthe material placed before this Court including the variousdecisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as hereunder.2.The State of Goa was under the Portuguese Rule until 19thDecember, 1961. Under the erstwhile Portuguese regime, miningconcessions had been granted in perpetuity to the concessionaires.However, after the liberation of the State of Goa, it became a partof the Union of India. As such, the MMDR, Act of 1957 becameapplicable to the State of Goa. Consequently, the Controller ofMining leases had issued a notice dated 10th March 1975 callingupon all the existing lessees and sub-lessees, to file their returnsunder Rule 5 of the Mining Leases (Modification of Terms) Rules,1956. The concessionaires in Goa also came within the purview ofthe said Notification. As such, the Notification dated 10th March,1975 was put to challenge before the Bombay High Court, GoaBench. By the Judgment dated 29th September 1983 rendered inthe case of Vassudeva Madeva Salgaocar vs Union of India1 theBombay High Court had passed a restraint order with regard to1(1985) 1 Bom CR 36.Page 5 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docenforcement of the Notification dated 10th March 1975 in respectof the concessionaires in Goa.3.The Goa, Daman and Diu Mining Concessions (Abolitionand Declaration as mining Leases) Act, 1987 (for short “theAbolition Act”) passed by the Parliament had received the assentof the President on 23rd May 1987. As per Section 4 of theAbolition Act, mining concessions were abolished with effect from20th December 1961 by providing that mining concessions wouldbe deemed to be mining leases granted under MMDR Act whichwould govern such leases. The “Abolition Act” was challengedbefore the Bombay High Court, which had passed interim orderspermitting the lessees to carry on with the mining operations withregard to the concessions for which renewal applications had beenfiled under Rule 24-A of the Mining Concession Rules. Eventually,although the High Court had upheld the validity of the “AbolitionAct” but it was clarified that the same would operate prospectively.The decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged before theHon’ble Supreme Court of India by instituting Special LeavePetition, wherein interim order was passed permitting thePage 6 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docconcessionaires to carry on with the mining operations and miningbusiness in the mining areas for which renewal applications hadbeen made, on the condition that the lessees would pay to theGovernment, dead-rent from the commencement of the “AbolitionAct”.4.On 16th October 2009, the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM),Government of India, Ministry of Mines, had issued a Notificationrevising the threshold value of minerals. In the said Notification,thresh hold of Iron Ores i.e. (i) for Hematic Iron Ore had beenshown as 45% Fe(min) and (ii) Hematitic Iron Ore (for Goanorigin) as 35% Fe(Min).5.In the meantime, reports were received by the Governmentof India pertaining to large scale illegal mining of Iron Ore andManganese Ore in different States including the Sate of Goa.Based on such information, the Government of India hadappointed one man Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of theCommissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 of Justice M. B. Shah, a FormerJudge of the Supreme Court of India. The terms of reference interalia, was to enter into and determine the extent of mining tradePage 7 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docand transportation of Iron Ore and Manganese Ore carried outillegally or without any authority of law and the losses incurredtherefrom and also to identify as far as possible, the persons, firmsand companies that were engaged in such illegal mining, tradeand transport of Iron Ore and Manganese Ore. Justice ShahInquiry Commission submitted two reports, one dated 15th March2012 and another dated 25th April 2012, which were tabled in theParliament on 7th September 2012, along with the Action-TakenReport. In the meantime, the Government of Goa had passedorder dated 10th September 2012 suspending all miningoperations within the Sate of Goa with effect from 11thSeptember 2012. The Ministry of Environment and Forests(“MoEF”) had also issued order dated 14th September 2012issuing a direction to keep in abeyance, the environmentalclearances granted to the mines in the State of Goa.6.In the wake of Justice Shah Commission report, thePetitioner herein had instituted Writ Petition being Writ Petition(C) No. 435 of 2012 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which wasPage 8 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docregistered as a Public Interest Litigation. The primary relief soughtin the PIL was for issuance of a direction to the Union of India andthe Sate of Goa to take steps for terminating the mines in respectwhereof, mining activities were being carried out in violation ofvarious statutes.7.On 5th October 2012, the Supreme Court had issued noticeto the Respondents in Writ Petition No. 435 of 2012. By the saidorder, a direction was also issued to the effect that until furtherorders, mining operations in the leases in Goa, identified in thereport of Justice Shah Commission and transportation of Iron Oreand Manganese Ore from those leases, whether lying on the Mine-head and Stockyard, to remain suspended. In the said proceeding,the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also directed that inventory of theexcavated mineral ores lying in different mines/ stockyards /jetties/ ports in the State of Goa, made by the Department ofMines and Geology of the Government of Goa, will first be verifiedand thereafter, the whole inventoried minerals will be sold by e-auction and the sale proceeds (less taxes and royalty) will beretained in separate fixed deposits(lease wise) by the State of GoaPage 9 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.doctill the judgment on the legality of the leases from which theminerals were extracted, is delivered by the Court. The entireprocess of verification of the inventory, e-auction and deposit ofsale proceeds was required to be monitored by MonitoringCommittee constituted for the purpose.8.By the order dated 11th November,2013 the Supreme Courthad constituted a Committee of Experts to conduct a macro EIAstudy on what should be the ceiling of annual excavation of ironores from the State of Goa, considering its iron ore resources andits carrying capacity, keeping in mind the principles of sustainabledevelopment and intergenerational equity and all other relevantfactors. Expert Committee (EC) submitted its interim report on14th March 2014 and final report on 14th October 2014.9.In the meantime, several mining lease holders hadapproached the Bombay High Court seeking a declaration that thereport submitted by Justice Shah Commission as well as the ordersissued thereunder, suspending the mining operations andenvironmental clearances, were illegal and, hence, liable to bequashed. Those Writ Petitions, instituted before the High Court ofPage 10 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docJudicature at Bombay were, however, transferred to the SupremeCourt and heard along with Writ Petition No. 435 of 2012.10.In the meantime, the Government of Goa had framed thepolicy for regulating the mining dumps on Government andprivate lands and related issues and notified the same in theOfficial Gazette on 3rd September 2013 vide Notification No.16/7/2008-RD(Part-III). The Notification dated 3rd September,2013 had inter-alia mentioned that it was an one time policy fordealing with issues of mining dumps and other related issues.Paragraph B of the Policy of 2013, which lays down the scope ofthe Policy, is reproduced as here-under:- “B. Scope of the Policy.—(1) The provisions of this policy shall be applicable to the landused for dumping of mining rejects or like material and for all otheractivities as provided under sub-section (2) of section 36 of LandRevenue Code, 1968 on the land not covered under the land leased formining activities irrespective of present and proposedclassification/zoning.(2) The policy provides for the levy of charges forunauthorisedly using the Government and private land for non--agricultural use.(3) This policy also provides for the procedure to levy thesecharges etc., and for restoration of land to its original use.”Page 11 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc11.From a plain reading of the Policy of 2013 it is apparentthat the primary objective of the same was to address the issue ofloss of revenue due to un-authorized occupation of huge chunks ofGovernment and private land for non-agricultural purpose i.e.mine dumping, in violation of Goa Land Revenue Code. Therefore,the Policy had provided for levy of charges by prescribing theconversion fees. As per the projections made in the Writ Petition,the Dump Policy of 2013 had resulted in collection of a sum of Rs426 crores by the Government of Goa as penalties for demand onLand Revenue.12.On 28th September 2013, the Goa Mineral Policy 2013,was finalised by the Government of Goa after considering therecommendations/ comments/ objections from various stakeholders. The Goa Mineral Policy of 2013 was published in theOfficial Gazette under Notification No. PR. Secy (Mines) 01/2012-Mines. Preamble to the policy takes note of the fact that the Goaneconomy is heavily depended on Iron Ore Industry. However,during the period from 2006-07 to 2011-12, due to huge spurt indemand of low grade ore in international market followed byPage 12 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docillegalities and irregularities under the previous regulatory regime,the State had witnessed the peak of unregulated mining withoutany concern for fragile ecology and environment of the State orfor the general well being of an average Goan, leading to recklessexploitation without any concern for sustainability. Therefore, itwas observed that in order to promote sustainable extractionregime to facilitate systematic, scientific and planned utilization ofmineral resources and to streamline mineral based development ofthe State, keeping in view, the need to protect environment, healthand safety of the people in and around the mining areas, the GoaMineral Policy 2013 has been framed. From the above, it is clearthat the primary objectives of the policy was to develop andexploit mineral resources in a scientific and systematic manner,taking into account the interest of the State, its People and theEnvironment. It would be significant to note here-in that theDump Policy of 2013 as well as the Goa Mineral Policy of 2013were framed and notified by the Government of Goa during thependency of Writ Petition (c) No 435 of 2012 and the connectedmatters before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, none ofPage 13 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docthose two polices were challenged by the Petitioner in WritPetition (C) No.435 of 2012.13.The verdict in Writ Petition (c) no 435 of 2012 and theconnected matters came to be delivered on 21st April 2014 in GoaFoundation vs Union of India.2 (here-in-after referred to as GoaFoundation-1 ).14.In Goa Foundation-1, the Supreme Court had inter-aliadeclared that the deemed mining leases of Goa had expired on22nd November 1987 and the maximum renewal period of 20years of the deemed mining leases had also expired on 22ndNovember 2007. Consequently, it was held that mining by thelessees after 22nd November 2007 was illegal. On the basis ofsuch observations, the order dated 10th September 2012 issued bythe Government of Goa and the order dated 14th September 2012issued by the MoEF were held to be sustainable. It was alsoobserved that dumping of mines outside the lease area of themining leases was not permissible under the MMDR Act and the2(2014)6 SCC 590.Page 14 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docRules made thereunder. In so far as Dump Mining activities wereconcerned, the Apex Court had observed that the EC had saidnothing about the mining dumps inside or outside the leased areasas noted by Justice Shah Commission presumably because in theorder dated 11th November 2013, no direction was issued in thatregard. Therefore, the opinion of the EC was sought in this regard,thereby directing it to submit its report within six months as tohow mining dumps in Goa are to be dealt with. On the basis ofsuch observations, the following directions were issued in GoaFoundation-1:-“88.1. MoEF will issue the notification of eco-sensitive zonesaround the national park and wildlife sanctuaries of Goa afterfollowing the procedure discussed in this judgment within aperiod of six months from today.88.2. The State Government will initiate action against thosemining lessees who violate Rules 37 and 38 of the MC Rules.88.3. The State Government will strictly enforce the Goa(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation ofMinerals) Rules, 2013.88.4. The State Government may grant mining leases of iron oreand other ores in Goa in accordance with its policy decision andin accordance with the MMDR Act and the Rules madethereunder in consonance with the constitutional provisions.88.5. Until the final report is submitted by the ExpertCommittee, the State Government will, in the interests ofsustainable development and intergenerational equity, permit amaximum annual excavation of 20 million MT from the miningleases in the State of Goa other than from dumps.88.6. The Goa Pollution Control Board will strictly monitor theair and water pollution in the mining areas and exercise powersPage 15 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docavailable to it under the 1974 Act and the 1981 Act includingthe powers under Section 33-A of the 1974 Act and Section 31-Aof the 1981 Act and furnish all relevant data to the ExpertCommittee.88.7The entire sale value of the e-auction of the inventoriedores will be forthwith realised and out of the total sale value, theDirector of Mines and Geology, Government of Goa, under thesupervision of the Monitoring Committee will make thefollowing payments: (a) Average cost of excavation of iron ores to the mining lessees;(b) 50% of the wages and dearness allowance to theworkers in the muster rolls of the mining leases whohave not been paid their wages during the period ofsuspension of mining operations;(c) 50% of the claim towards storage charges ofMarmagao Port Trust.Out of the balance, 10% will be appropriated towards the GoanIron Ore Permanent Fund and the remaining amount will beappropriated by the State Government as the owner of the ores.88.8. The Monitoring Committee will submit its final report onthe utilisation and appropriation of the sale proceeds of theinventoried ores in the manner directed in this judgment withinsix months from today.88.9. Henceforth, the mining lessees of iron ore will have to pay10% of the sale price of the iron ore sold by them to the GoanIron Ore Permanent Fund.88.10. The State Government will within six months from todayframe a comprehensive scheme with regard to the Goan IronOre Permanent Fund in consultation with CEC for sustainabledevelopment and intergenerational equity and submit the sameto this Court within six months from today; and88.11 The Expert Committee will submit its report within sixmonths from today on how the mining dumps in the State ofGoa should be dealt with and will submit its final report withintwelve months from today on the cap to be put on the annualexcavation of iron ore in Goa.”15.From the direction contained in paragraph 88.11, as notedabove, it is thus evident that save and except calling from thePage 16 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docExpert Committee report within six months as to how to deal withthe mining dumps, the Supreme Court did not issue any othereffective order pertaining to the mining dumps in Goa Foundation-1.16.In the meantime, several mining leases holders, who hadapplied for renewal of mining leases and had already paid stampduty in terms of the Goa Mineral Policy of 2013 and whoseapplications for renewal were pending since the year 2006, hadapproached the Bombay High Court praying either forconsideration of their application for a second renewal or for thegrant of a mining lease on renewal. After considering the prayersmade by the Petitioners and upon taking note of the Goa MineralPolicy of 2013 framed by the Goa Government, the Bombay HighCourt, in the case of Lithoferro thorugh its Partner KaustubhSawkr & Anr Vs. Director of Mines and Geology & Ors.3 and theconnected matters, had passed judgement and order dated 13thAugust,2014, directing the State Government to execute LeaseDeeds under Section 8(3) of the MMDR Act in favour of the lease32022 SCC OnLine Bom 3420.Page 17 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docholders, who had already paid stamp duty pursuant to the order ofthe Government, in accordance with the Goa Mineral Policy of2013, subject, however, to the conditions laid down by the ApexCourt in Goa Foundation-1. It was observed that the expression“fresh leases” appearing in paragraph 67 of Goa Foundation-1would mean and include grant of renewal of leases. In so far asthe lease holders who had not paid the stamp duty, the State ofGovernment was directed to decide their renewal applicationsunder Section 8(3), as expeditiously as possible, preferably withina period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of theorder. The decision of the Bombay High Court in the case ofLithoferro (Supra) was assailed by Goa Foundation i.e. thePetitioner, before the Supreme Court by filing SLP (c) No.32138/2015 and SLP (c) No. 32699-727 of 2015.17.The State of Goa had framed the Goa Grant of MiningLeases Policy of 2014 which was issued on 04th November 2014and gazetted on 20th January 2015. The said Policy had apparentlyrejected the idea of competitive bidding for the grant of miningleases for the time being. Under the said Policy, 88 mining leasesPage 18 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docwere renewed. These renewals were also under challenge. It wasthe case of the Petitioners that in view of the Judgment renderedin Goa Foundation-1, the mining leases which had expired in theyear 2007 could not have been renewed under the garb ofgranting fresh leases.18.After taking note of the submissions made by the parties,the Apex Court was of the view that the questions raised in theproceeding were threefold- viz. (i) In view of the Judgment in GoaFoundation-1 whether, only fresh leases were to be granted by theState of Goa and not second renewal? (ii) For granting fresh leaseswhether, the State of Goa should have introduced competitivebidding and auction process; and (iii) Even assuming that thedecision to grant second renewal to the mining lease holders wasvalid, even than, whether, the second renewals were in accordancewith law ? The question as to whether the decision of the BombayHigh Court in the case of Lithoferro (Supra) was in accordancewith law also fell for consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the said proceeding. By the judgment and order dated 7thFebruary,2018 in Goa Foundation Versus Sesa Sterlite Limited andPage 19 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docOthers as well as the connected proceedings reported in (2018) 4SCC 218 (here-in-after referred to as Goa Foundation-2 ) it washeld that in view of the categorical directions contained in GoaFoundation-1 The State of Goa was required to consider the grantof fresh mining leases. Therefore, the decision of the State of Goato grant second renewal of the mining leases was erroneous,contrary to the decision of Goa Foundation-1 and, therefore, wasliable to be quashed.19. Referring to the EAC report submitted in October 2013pertaining to 137 mining Leases wherein it was found that manyof the mining Lease Holders had (i) no approval from the NationalBoard of Wildlife (ii) indulged in excess mining or dump miningor (iii) intersected ground water level without any clearance of theCentral Ground Water Board (iv) had no forest clearance, theSupreme Court had observed in Goa Foundation - 2 that althoughthe Mineral Policy and the EAC report were perhaps placed beforethe Court in Goa Foundation - 1, the same were not dealt with.20.Dealing with the question as to whether the State of Goashould have auctioned these mining leases, the Supreme CourtPage 20 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.doctook note of the observations made in an earlier decision in thecase of Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Ref. No. 1 of2012,4 wherein the following observations have been made:-“148. In our opinion, auction despite being a more preferablemethod of alienation/allotment of natural resources, cannot beheld to be a constitutional requirement or limitation foralienation of all natural resources and therefore, every methodother than auction cannot be struck down as ultra vires theconstitutional mandate.149. Regard being had to the aforesaid precepts, we have opinedthat auction as a mode cannot be conferred the status of aconstitutional principle. Alienation of natural resources is a policydecision, and the means adopted for the same are thus, executiveprerogatives. However, when such a policy decision is not backedby a social or welfare purpose, and precious and scarce naturalresources are alienated for commercial pursuits of profitmaximising private entrepreneurs, adoption of means other thanthose that are competitive and maximise revenue may bearbitrary and face the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution.Hence, rather than prescribing or proscribing a method, webelieve, a judicial scrutiny of methods of disposal of naturalresources should depend on the facts and circumstances of eachcase, in consonance with the principles which we have culled outabove. Failing which, the Court, in exercise of power of judicialreview, shall term the executive action as arbitrary, unfair,unreasonable and capricious due to its antimony with Article 14of the Constitution.”21.In the light of the decision in Natural Resources Allocation,In Re, Special Ref (supra) the question as to whether, auction wasmandatory for disposal of natural resources was answered by theApex Court in paragraphs 80.1 to 80.5 of Goa Foundation-2 asfollows:-4(2012) 10 SCC 1.Page 21 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc“80.1. It is not obligatory, constitutionally or otherwise, that anatural resource (other than spectrum) must be disposed of oralienated or allocated only through an auction or throughcompetitive bidding;80.2. Where the distribution, allocation, alienation or disposal ofa natural resource is to a private party for a commercial pursuitof maximising profits, then an auction is a more preferablemethod of such allotment;80.3. A decision to not auction a natural resource is liable tochallenge and subject to restricted and limited judicial reviewunder Article 14 of the Constitution;80.4. A decision to not auction a natural resource and sacrificemaximisation of revenues might be justifiable if the decision istaken, inter alia, for the social good or the public good or thecommon good;80.5. Unless the alienation or disposal of a natural resource is forthe common good or a social or welfare purpose, it cannot bedissipated in favour of a private entrepreneur virtually free ofcost or for a consideration not commensurate with its worthwithout attracting Article 14 and Article 39(b) of theConstitution.”22.In Goa Foundation-2 although it was observed that inprinciple the decision of the State of Goa not to auction the grantof mining lease was flawed, yet, the Apex Court did not expressany final opinion on the issue nor quashed the decision of theGovernment of Goa not to go for competitive bidding for grant offresh mining lease by observing that the same was not an issuewarranting adjudication in that proceeding. The conclusionsdrawn in Goa Foundation-2 and directions issued therein arereproduced here-in-below for ready reference:-Page 22 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc“154. In view of our discussion, we arrive at the followingconclusions:154.1. As a result of the decision, declaration and directions ofthis Court in Goa Foundation, the State of Goa was obliged togrant fresh mining leases in accordance with law and not secondrenewals to the mining leaseholders.154.2. The State of Goa was not under any constitutionalobligation to grant fresh mining leases through the process ofcompetitive bidding or auction.154.3. The second renewal of the mining leases granted by theState of Goa was unduly hasty, without taking all relevantmaterial into consideration and ignoring available relevantmaterial and therefore not in the interests of mineraldevelopment. The decision was taken only to augment therevenues of the State which is outside the purview of Section8(3) of the MMDR Act. The second renewal of the mining leasesgranted by the State of Goa is liable to be set aside and isquashed.154.4. The Ministry of Environment and Forests was obliged togrant fresh environmental clearances in respect of fresh grant ofmining leases in accordance with law and the decision of thisCourt in Goa Foundation and not merely lift the abeyance orderof 14-9-2012.154.5. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Lithoferro v.State of Goa (and batch) giving directions different from thosegiven by this Court in Goa Foundation¹ is set aside.154.6. The mining leaseholders who have been granted thesecond renewal in violation of the decision and directions of thisCourt in Goa Foundation are given time to manage their affairsand may continue their mining operations till 15-3-2018.However, they are directed to stop all mining operations witheffect from 16-3-2018 until fresh mining leases (not freshrenewals or other renewals) are granted and fresh environmentalclearances are granted.154.7. The State of Goa should take all necessary steps to grantfresh mining leases in accordance with the provisions of theMines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.The Ministry of Environment and Forests should also take allnecessary steps to grant fresh environmental clearances to thosewho are successful in obtaining fresh mining leases. The exerciseshould be completed by the State of Goa and the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests as early as reasonably practicable.Page 23 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc154.8. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to ensurethat the Special Investigating Team and the Team of CharteredAccountants constituted pursuant to the Goa Grant of MiningLeases Policy, 2014 give their report at the earliest and the Stateof Goa should implement the reports at the earliest, unless thereare very good reasons for rejecting them.154.9. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps to expediterecovery of the amounts said to be due from the miningleaseholders pursuant to the show-cause notices issued to themand pursuant to other reports available with the State of Goaincluding the report of Special Investigating Team and the Teamof Chartered Accountants.”23.After the decision in case of Goa Foundation-2 as notedabove, the State of Government came up with the “Policy forregulating Iron Ore dump handling in the State of Goa”, whichwas published in the Official Gazette on 14th September 2023.The aforesaid policy, here-in-after referred to as “the Policy of2023”, was apparently aimed at addressing the ground realitiesarising pursuant to the Judgment delivered by the Supreme Courtin Goa Foundation-1, more particularly, the declaration thatdumping of minerals outside the lease area itself was illegal.Clause 2(2) of the Policy of 2023 is under challenge in this WritPetition.24.While acknowledging the fact that in view of the declarationof the Supreme Court, the erstwhile lease holders would not haveany right to handle the dumps out side the lease area except inPage 24 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docaccordance with the Policy decision of the State, it was providedthat the Policy of 2023 was in continuation and modification ofearlier policy for regulating the mining dumps over Governmentand Private lands and the related issues.25.Clause 1.2 of the of the Policy of 2023 defines “dump”,which reads as follows:“Dump constitutes the excavated material accumulated inthe form of heap or pile on the surface of the land or stockedon the demineralized area temporarily or permanentlyduring mining, and the material stocked or piled can be re-handled as and when required not only for recovery of Femineral and associated minerals but also to fulfil the normsof mine closure plan as specified by the regulatory bodies.Therefore, dumps include not only the piles of stocks ofexploitable Fe mineral, but it also includes wastes andtailings.”26.As per Clause 1.3 a Dump site would mean and includeearmarked areas either within the mining lease or outside thelease area, utilized for storing ore, overburden lumps or fines,rejects, sub-grade material, tailings or earth/soil generated duringmining operation or extraction of ROM.27.Clause 2 of the Policy deals with dumps situated outside thelease area on private property.Page 25 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc28.Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the Policy of 2023 would be relevantin this case and, therefore, are being reproduced hereinbelow forready reference:-“2.Dumps situated outside the lease area on privateproperty.— 2.1. All dumps which have not been approved orshown in the mining plan sanctioned by the IBM shall bedeemed to be completely illegal and neither the lease holdernor any other person shall have any right to the same. Suchdumps shall be compulsorily auctioned by the Government.2.2. With respect to the inventoried dumps situated onprivate properties falling outside the lease area, but depictedon the mining plan, only if the Conversion fees in terms of thePolicy for regulating the mining dumps on Government andprivate lands, and related issues and the fine contemplatedunder sub-section 1A of section 33 of the Goa Land RevenueCode, have been paid; the erstwhile lease holder shall bepermitted to remove the dump within a period of five yearsfrom the date of publication of the present policy or suchfurther period as may be notified, subject to payment ofroyalty and compliance of all statutory requirements.”29.From a conjoint reading of Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the Policyof 2023, what transpires is that in respect of the mining dumpswhich did not have the approval as shown in the mining plan,such dumps would stand forfeited under the policy and would becompulsorily auctioned by the Government. However, in respect ofthe inventoried dumps situated on private properties, which arefalling outside lease area but depicted in the mining plan, theright of the erstwhile lease holders to remove the same within aPage 26 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docperiod of five years form the date of publication of the Policy onpayment of royalty has been recognized. Clause 2(1) of the Policy,in our considered opinion, proceeds on the premise that in case ofdumps situated outside the mining area but covered in the miningplan instead of conducting auction of such dumps, theGovernment had permitted the lessees to remove the same withinthe specified time period after payment of conversion fee androyalty and as per the other statutory requirements.30.Ms. Norma Alvares, learned Senior Counsel appearing forthe Petitioner has straneously argued that after the decision of theApex Court in Goa Foundation-1, whereby it was observed that alldumping outside the lease area are illegal and without anyauhtorization under the law, the erstwhile leases cannot claimownership over such dumps. She submits that even if such dumpswere created under the mining plans by the erstwhile leaseholders, even then, in view of the observations made in the GoaFoundation -1, all such dumps along with the respective leaseshad lapsed. Under such circumstances, the erstwhile lease holderscannot claim any right over the dumps nor can the same bePage 27 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.dochanded over to such ex-lease holders without putting the same topublic auction. According to Ms. Norma Alvares, learned SeniorCounsel, for the Petitioner, after the decision in Goa Foundation-1dumps containing Iron Ore ought to have been confiscated by theState of Goa and the same should have been sold in public auctionsince no other means of alienation of natural resources would bepermissible under the law.31.By referring to and relying upon the decision of theSupreme Court Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Vs State of Bihar & Ors.5Ms Alvares has further argued that surface deposits also constitutemining and therefore, the dump mines would be liable to bedisposed of by the State only through auction and by no othermeans. Notwithstanding the same, the impugned clause in thePolicy 2023, which permits handing over the dumps to theerstwhile leases merely on payment of conversion fee and royaltyof 22% is not only in conflict with the mandate flowing from thedecisions of the Supreme Court in Goa Foundation-1, but the samewould also result in huge losses to the public exchequer. Tosubstantiate her above arguments, Ms Alvares has projected that5(1990) 4 SCC 557.Page 28 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docthe procedure adopted by the State of Goa for alienation of dumpsoutside the Lease area, without holding e-auction would result inalienation of about 261.70 million tons of dumps, the revenue forwhich, would be in the vicinity of Rs. 10,000 crores.32.In so far as the Expert Committee Report, which indicatesthat it would be the prerogative of the State Government to framepolicy for handling of dumps outside the lease area, Ms. Alvaressubmits that such recommendations of the Expert Committeewould not have the force of law nor can the same perpetuateillegality. Therefore, the Respondent-State cannot seek refugeunder the Expert Committee Report, so as to justify the impugnedpolicy. On such count, Ms. Alvares has submitted that Clause 2(2)of the Policy of 2023 be struck-down by this Court and allconsequential actions taken thereunder, including issuance of in-principle approval, consent to operate, and final approval dated15th May 2025 in favour of the ex-Lessee i.e. the Respondent No.4 be set aside by this Court.33.Responding to the above arguments, Mr Devidas Pangam,learned Advocate General for the State of Goa has submitted thatPage 29 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docdumps cannot be treated on equal footing with the Iron Oreextracted from the mines as per the Mining Plan. Since there is nodirection for confiscation of the dumps in Goa Foundation-1 andconsidering the recommendations made by the Expert Committeeobserving that appropriations /ownership of the dumps outsidethe lease area would be within the domain of the StateGovernment, hence, the policy of 2023 have been framed bytaking note of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.Therefore, the same does not call for any interference by thisCourt.34.Mr. Pangam has further argued that since there is nodeclaration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as regards ownership orexpropriation of the dumps located either within or outside thelease area and since the Expert Committee has left the matter atthe discretion of the State, which position has also been affirmedby the order dated 13th December 2022 passed by the SupremeCourt in IA No. 6524/2020 arising out of WP(C)-435/2012,hence, the prayers made in the Writ Petition are not sustainable inPage 30 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docthe eyes of law. The Writ Petition is, therefore, liable to bedismissed.35.Mr S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the RespondentNo. 4, while supporting the above arguments made by and onbehalf of the State Government of Goa, has further contended thatthe dumps were created under the mining plan by the erstwhilelessees and treated as waste materials since those did not haveany marketable value at the relevant point of time. Value, if any,attached to the dumps was only subsequent to reduction of thethreshold value of the Ores from 55% to 45% which took place inthe year 2009 i.e. much after the creation of the dumps.Contending that the policy of 2023 is nothing but continuation of2013 policy, which also did not provide for confiscation or publicauction for the dumps and in view of the fact that the Petitionerdid not challenge the 2013 policy, hence, the prayer made in thePIL Petition would not be maintainable under the law.36.It is the further contention of the learned senior counselappearing for the Respondent No. 4 that after the direction of theSupreme Court issued on 13th December 2022 permitting thePage 31 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docState of Goa to resume dump mining activities in accordance withExpert Committee’s report, no order contrary to the directionscontained in said order, can either be prayed for or passed by thisCourt. Under such circumstances, the learned Senior Counselappearing for the Respondent No. 4 has also prayed for dismissalof the PIL Petition.37.Mr S.S.Kantak, learned senior counsel appearing for theRespondent No 5 has also prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petitionby arguing that the prayers made there-in are not maintainableunder the law.38.The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, Mr. JaoquimGodinha, has adopted the submissions made by the otherRespondents and has also prayed for dismissal of the PIL Petition.39.We have considered the submissions made at the Bar andhave also gone through the material available on record. At thevery outset, it deserves to be noted herein that, in the presentPetition, we are not concerned with granting of mining leases butwith disposal of dump mining created outside the Mining LeasePage 32 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docArea. From the definition provided in Clause 1(2) of the Policy of2023, it is evident that Dumps are created due to accumulation ofmaterial stocked or piled temporarily in demineralized area whichcan be re-handled not only for recovery of Fe ore and otherassociated minerals but also for mine closure and the sameincludes wastes and tailings.40.As per the statements made in paragraph 18 of the WritPetition, there are two categories of mining dumps which aredistinguishable from one another. “Waste dumps” are huge dumpscomprising of topsoil, over burden, non-mineral waste, mud, rocksetc. which are required to back fill the mining pits after mineclosure. “Minirel dumps” would consist of stack of ore or sub-grade ore which were kept aside during mining operation. Afterthe revision of the threshold value of Iron Ore by the IBM, from55% to 45 % these sub-grade ore immediately became saleable/marketable. Therefore, in view of the decision in GoaFoundation-1 these dumps containing saleable/ marketable orehad vested in the State and therefore, those were liable to beconfiscated and disposed of through public auction. Page 33 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc41.What would be significant to note here-in that in GoaFoundation-1, although an issue regarding ownership andexpropriation of mining dumps were raised, no opinion in respectthereof was rendered by the Apex Court. Instead, as has beennoted above, opinion of the EC was called for as to the manner inwhich such dumps are to be handled. The EC had submitted itsreport on 14th October, 2014. The EC report was available duringthe pendency of Goa Foundation-2. However, it appears that theissue regarding public auction of mining dumps was not raised bythe Petitioner in Goa Foundation-2. The said aspect of the matter,in our opinion, would assume great significance in the facts of thiscase simply on account of the fact that in Goa Foundation-2instituted by the Petitioner, the Apex Court was examining thevalidity of the Goa Grant of Mining Lease Policy, 2014 permittinggrant of mining lease without resorting to the process ofcompetitive bidding. However, the Policy of 2014 had not beeninterfered with by the Court in Goa Foundation -2.42.Not only that, the Policy of 2013 was notified by theGovernment of Goa on 3rd September, 2013 i.e. before thePage 34 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docdecision in Goa Foundation-1. The Policy 2013 also did notenvisage confiscation of mining dumps outside the Mining LeaseArea or for that matter, holding of e-auction or competitivebidding for disposal of mining dumps. At that stage also theNotification of the IBM issued on 16th October 2009 revising thethreshold value of iron ore was also available in public domain. Inother words, all such grounds urged in the present Petitionpertaining to dump mining, were available to the Petitioner duringthe pendency of Goa Foundation-1. However, no relief, in the lightof the policy of 2013, was prayed for by the Petitioner.Notwithstanding the same, the Policy of 2023, which is acontinuation of the Policy of 2013, has been assailed in this WritPetition.43.The recommendations of the Expert Committee pertainingto dump mining is contained in paragraph 6 of the report dated14th October 2014, which is reproduced hereinbelow for readyreference:-“6.0 Recommendations1.The unstable dumps that are contributing to the pollution ofsurrounding ecosystems and those located on hill slopes, forest areasPage 35 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docand other ecologically sensitive non-lease areas should be handled onpriority.2. Those dumps which are stabilized and covered with the vegetation andlocated in lease area, and not contributing to the degradation ofsurrounding ecosystems may be permitted for dump mining only afterthe existing ore as above is exhausted in a particular lease and subjectto all clearances including environmental and forest clearances and onan approved mining plan. (The advantage of mining of these dumpswill be: (i) that the lateritic plateaus will be available for bring back totheir original ecosystem through restoration; (ii) yield minerals ofcommercial values and generate income and promoted economicgrowth, (iii) the wastes can be used in back filling demineralized pits,(iv) prevent pollution from un-stabilized dumps, and (v) some of theshallow voids can be used for storage of water and also for rechargingground water. Consequently, the advantages of dump mining outweighthe pollution caused which can be mitigated by appropriate measures.)3. The dumps in the non-lease area is in the domain of the State Govt.and and the State Govt. may evolve an appropriate policy keeping inview the various existing judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtand Hon'ble High Courts, the various related legislations,recommendations made in this report, taking into account theenvironment, ecology, socio-economics of the area, mineralconservation, and other related factors.4. By and large, dumps which are situated within the mining lease areaare being managed and dealt with in accordance with approvedmining plans. However, further conditions may be imposed for all suchdumps which contain sub-grade ores, either partially or fully, and aresituated outside the mining lease area to minimise environmentalImpacts.5. The dumps of tallings are the source of pollution of surroundingecosystems. Therefore, these dumps should be grassed or covered withmulch till the material is disposed of.6. The GMP, 2013 policy as envisaged under 6.3.6 should be followedbefore re-handling dumps in forest areas.7. Additional ore beneficiation/palletisation plants with modern as wellas relevant technologies could set up for re-handling of the dumps.8. The Committee recommends setting up a Centre for EcologicalRestoration and Mineral Development, with the financial resource fromcess imposed on the saleable minerals or CAMPA funds.9. Assessment of the extent of saleable Fe ore and potential saleable Feore (after beneficiation), and other associated minerals (e.g. industrialminerals) may be undertaken from both stabilized and un-stabilizedPage 36 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docdumps. This assessment should be carried out as per the MMDR, GMP2013, IBM rules and other relevant rules/regulations.10. The mine quarries could be used for storage of water and recharge ofground water, pisiculture development, source of water for Irrigationetc. In such a case, mine closure plan has to be suitably amended.11. Dump mining should be undertaken after relevant approvals Includingenvironmental clearance, forest clearance if required.12. The committee recommends that the classification of dumps proposedin the report may be followed in the management of dumps.\13. The GMP, 2013 may be amended, as required, to take Into account therecommendations made by the Expert Committee.”44.In view of the recommendations made by the ExpertCommittee, the Government of Goa had filed InterlocutoryApplication bearing No 6524/2020 in Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No.435 of 2012 seeking permission to carry out dump mining. Basedon such application made by the State of Goa, the Hon’bleSupreme Court had passed order dated 13th December, 2022allowing the State Government to carry out dump activities. Theorder dated 13th December 2022 passed in IA No. 6524/2020 inWP(C)-435/2012 would be of great significance in this case andtherefore, the same is being reproduced hereinbelow:-“Vide order dated 14.08.2017, this Court had statedthat the Expert Committee's Report will be duly considered.This application has been filed by the State of Goapraying for 'permitting the applicant to carry out dumpmining recommended by the Expert Committee's Reportdated as 12.04.2015.Page 37 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docThere is no opposition to the said application.We are, therefore, inclined to allow the StateGovernment to carry out the dump mining activities inaccordance with the Expert Committee's Report andspecifically paragraph 6 that is containing therecommendation of the Expert Committee.The application (I.A. No. 6524 of 2020) is disposed ofin the above terms.”45.After the order dated 13th December 2022 was passed, on14th September 2023, the Dump Policy of 2023 was framed by theGovernment of Goa by taking into consideration therecommendations made by the Expert Committee.46.From a plain reading of the order dated 13th December,2022 we find that the methodology for carrying out dump miningactivities by the State Government of Goa was directed to be inaccordance with the Expert Committee’s report. Save and exceptthe recommendations in paragraph 6 of the Expert Committee, noother condition has been added in the order dated 13th December2022 as a criteria for carrying out the dump mining activities.Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that itwould not be permissible for this Court to add words to the orderdated 13th December 2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,Page 38 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docas such a recourse would clearly amount to tinkering with and/ormodifying the order dated 13th December 2022 of the Hon’bleSupreme Court.47.If the Petitioner had any objection to the recommendationsmade by the Expert Committee in the light of Goa Foundation-1and Goa Foundation-2 and was of the view that the dump createdoutside the Mining Lease Area ought to be confiscated and put topublic auction, then in that event, there was nothing preventingthe Petitioner from raising such a plea before the Hon’ble SupremeCourt when the order dated 13th December, 2022 was passed. Thesaid order was evidently passed after hearing the Petitioner. Butthe Petitioner did not raise any objection to the Expert Committeerecommendation for handling the mining dumps. The order dated13th December, 2022 has attained finality in the eyes of law. Noapplication for review/modification of the order dated 13thDecember 2022 has been filed by the Petitioner before theSupreme Court. 48.As per Article 141 of the Constitution, this Court is dutybound to implement the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inPage 39 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docletter and spirit. Law is also well settled that a Court order mustbe read and understood strictly in the context of the order. InGoan Real Estate & Construction Limited & Anr. Vs. Union ofIndia through Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Ors.6 it hasbeen observed that an order of the Court must be construedhaving due regard to the text and context in which the same waspassed. The Judgment and Order of the Court cannot be read as astatute. 49.In the decision of the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench, inVedanta Limited & Anr. Vs. Director of Mines and Geology & Ors.,7a co-ordinate Bench, while dealing with the prayer of thePetitioner herein to extend the mining lease period from 1987 to2037 under Section 8(A)(3) of the Act of 1957 on the ground thatsuch extension was mandated under the statute and, therefore,was not affected by the decision of the Supreme Court in GoaFoundation-2, has observed that the decision of the SupremeCourt would be binding and the High Court cannot direct theState to act contrary to the clear directions of the Supreme Court.6(2010) 5 SCC 388.7Writ Petition No. 1005 of 2019.Page 40 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docIn that case it was observed that the Supreme Court has clearlydirected that only fresh mining leases can be granted and notrenewal and extension of lease. After taking note of the facts andcircumstances of the case, directions issued in Goa Foundation-2 ,the Division Bench had observed that, until the decision in GoaFoundation-2 is reviewed, the prayer made by the Petitionertherein to amend and grant extension of lease cannot beconsidered, as the same would be contrary to the decision of theHon’ble Supreme Court in Goa Foundation-2.50.On 16th August 2024, the Directorate of Mines, granted “in-principle” approval to the Respondent No. 4 for dump handling inaccordance with Clause 2(2) of the Dump Policy, 2023.Goa StatePollution Control Board (“GSPCB”) had also granted consent tooperate for dump handling on 12th November 2024. In the monthof January 2025, amendments were carried out to Clause 2(2) ofthe Dump Policy 2023 thereby expanding the scope of the dumpson other lease areas as well. Accordingly, on 6th March 2025, thecabinet approved levy of 22% premium for dump handling underPage 41 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docthe amended policy. Thereafter, on 4th April 2025, the SEIAA hadgranted environment clearance to the Respondent No. 4 forcarrying out dump handling. On 7th May 2025, secondamendment to Clause 2(2) was carried out, thus, introducingpremium mechanism for dump removal. On 7th May 2025, theDirectorate of Mines had also issued an order implementing 22%premium on dump mines. Based on the above, final approvaldated 15th May 2025 was issued in favour of the Respondent No.4 for handiling 1.35 MMT dump at Sirigao village. The State ofGoa had thereafter, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court ofIndia seeking permission to dispose of 1.94 MMT of “non-inventoriesd” ore. 51.In the above context, it would be pertinent to mentionherein that from a reading of the judgments rendered in GoaFoundation-1 and Goa Foundation -2, it appears that the miningdumps were created by concessionaires and/or the erstwhile leaseholders while operating the mining leases/ concessions which hadevidently lapsed in the year 2007. Therefore, the Petitioner mayPage 42 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.dochave some justification in contending that just like the Iron Orelying in the mines, requiring execution of fresh mining leasesthrough e-auction, the same process must also be followed even incase of dumps. However, such contention of the Petitioner cannotbe countenanced for two reasons. Firstly, while there is acategorical declaration in Goa Foundation -1 pertaining to theownership of the mines after the lease holders’ right had ceased tooperate, there is no such declaration in respect of the mining thedumps. The said position has also remained unaltered in GoaFoundation-2. 52.It is no doubt true that in Mineral Area DevelopmentAuthority Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited,8 relied upon by thelearned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, it has been observedthat natural resources are held by the State as trustee of the publicand, therefore, the State must deal with the same in a the mannerconsistent in a nature of such trust and in accordance with theregulatory regime. The Petitioner’s counsel has also argued that inthe case of Meerut Development Authority Vs. Association of8(2024) 10 SCC 1.Page 43 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docManagement & Ors.,9 it has been observed that the wealth of theState must not go to the hands of the individuals at a discount. 53.In the case of Sachidanand Pandey Vs. State of W.B,10 it hasbeen observed that the State owned property should not be dealtwith at the absolute discretion of the Executives. The aboveobservation was quoted in the case of Centre for Public InterestLitigation & Ors. Vs. Union of India.11 The Petitioner has heavilyrelied on such decisions. There can be no quarrel with thepropositions of law flowing from the aforesaid decisions. However,in our opinion, none of those decisions had laid down the absoluteproposition of law that in every case, the State must resort topublic auction for disposing of natural resources. 54.In the case of Natural Resources Allocation (Supra), theHon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that auction is justone of the several price discovery mechanism and, therefore, itcannot be held to be the only constitutionally recognized methodfor alienation of natural resources although it can be a mode of9(2009) 6 SCC 171.10(1987) 2 SCC 295.11(2012) 3 SCC 1.Page 44 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docvalid disposal of natural resources. Such observation in NaturalResources Allocation has been quoted with approval in GoaFoundation-2, wherein some of the issues raised in the presentPetition were directly and substantially in issue.55.In the present case, as has been noted above, the dumps,whether in the Government land or private land, outside the leasearea were the products of mining activities, which were carriedout under the approved mining plans. When these dumps weregenerated, those were treated as waste, thus, signifying that novalue would be attached to such dump mines. Their valueincreased only after the threshold limit was revised in the year2009. The State Government of Goa earlier has realised or is inthe prrocess of realizing conversion fee from the ex-lessees forusing the land for dumping and also recovered royalty on suchdumps. Therefore, it cannot be said that as per Clause 2(2) ofPolicy of 2023, the dumps are being alienated without following atransparent process or by causing loss to the exchequer. The factsand figures projected by the Petitioners are also totally insufficientfor this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the all the dumpsPage 45 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.doccontain deposit of Iron Ores/ Manganese Ores, valued in excess ofthe royalty recovered by the State. 56.Law is well settled that although a policy decision of theState is not immune to judicial review of the constitutional Court,yet, the Court would not sit in appeal over the wisdom or efficacyof the policy. In policy matters, the Court must respect theseparation of power and exercise restraint unless it is shown thatthe policy itself infringes on the fundamental rights of the citizensor is arbitrary or unreasonable or the same is framed in bad faith,with the mala fide intent and ulterior motive to extend unduefavour to a specific entity, by ignoring the public interest at large.While examining the validity of a policy decision of the State inexercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, the Court must play a supervisory role but not the role of anAppellate Authority and act as a sentinel on the qui vive so as toensure that the executive does not cross the boundary of fairness,reasonableness and the decisions are compliant with the statutorynorms as well as fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III ofthe Constitution of India. Page 46 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc57.Policy decision of the State, particularly, in economic matter,are based on various inputs, data and ground realities which arewithin the special knowledge of the executives. The economicpolicies are shaped by such inputs available to the Government.The Courts do not have the necessary expertise to examine themerit of such policies so as to arrive at a conclusion, as to whether,a better policy could have been framed.58.In the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, reported in(1994) 6 SCC 651, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it isnot for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or adecision taken in fullfilment of that policy is fair or not. The Courtshould only be concerned with the manner in which thosedecisions have been taken.59.In the case of M P Oil Extraction Vs. State of M.P.,12 theHon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Executive Authorityof the State must be held to be within its competence to frame apolicy. Unless the policy is absolutely capricious and not beinginformed by any reason whatsoever, permitting the conclusion12(1997) 7 SCC 592.Page 47 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docthat the same is arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of theexecutive thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution of Indiaor the same is found to be in conflict with the statutory provisions,the Court cannot and should not overstep its limits and tinker withthe policy decision of the executive functionary of the State. 60.In the case of BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs Unionof India & Ors.,13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made thefollowing observations in paragraph 98, which reads thus:- “98.In the case of a policy decision on economicmatters, the courts should be very circumspect inconducting any enquiry or investigation and must bemost reluctant to impugn the judgment of the expertswho may have arrived at a conclusion unless the court issatisfied that there is illegality in the decision itself.”61.Coming to the facts of the present case, as has been notedabove, it is not a case where the mining dumps have beenpermitted to be removed, as per Clause 2(2) of the policy of 2023,without following any transparent procedure. Clause 2(2) of thePolicy of 2023 cannot be struck down by the Court merely on theground that a better policy could have been framed by the State.13(2002) 2 SCC 333.Page 48 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.doc62.Insofar as the mining dumps, generated under fresh miningleases issued in terms of the provisions of the MMDR Act isconcerned, Clause 2(2) of the policy of 2023 itself makes it clearthat such dump mine must be in conformity of the mining planapproved by the Competent Authority. 63.From the above, it is apparent that the mining dumps socreated are nothing but the dumps generated due to the miningactivities carried out under an approved mining plans. Therefore,it must be presumed that the lease holder has already paid royaltywith regard to the Iron Ore, if any, contained in the dumps. Undersuch circumstances, the plea of disposing of the dumps, through afresh process of auction, in our considered opinion, does not holdto reason. Rather, we are of the view that the mechanismprescribed under Clause 2(2) of the Policy of 2023 is not only fairand transparent but the same also adequately addresses theeconomic concerns of the State. 64.It is no doubt correct that Section 10(B) of the MMDR Actof 1957 makes it mandatory for grant of mining lease in respectnotified minerals thorough auction, which includes Iron Ore andPage 49 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docManganese Ore. However, in the present case, as noted above, weare not concerned with the grant of fresh mining lease, whichissue was conclusively dealt with in Goa Foundation-1 and GoaFoundation-2 and appropriate directions issued therein. It is nodoubt correct that in view of the decision in Goa Foundation-1, itis now settled that dump mining activities outside the Mining Areawould be illegal. But the same, in our view, would notautomatically lead to the conclusion that all mining dumpscreated outside the mining area, are liable to be confiscated andsold in public auction as no such direction has been issued in GoaFoundation-1 or Goa Fundation-2. In view of the definition ofmining dumps as noted above, we are also not inclined to acceptthe Petitioner’s contention that the mining dumps are to be treatedat par with the mining leases for the purpose of Section 10(B) ofthe MMDR Act, 1957. 65.In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd Vs State of Bihar &Ors. (Supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for thePetitioner, the Appellant therein was a Government company,carrying out coal mining operation in village Sudamdih in thePage 50 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docState of Bihar. There was a coal washery adjacent to theAppellants coal mine. After the coal was extracted from the mines,the same used to be crushed into pieces of different sizes for thepurpose of grading and, thereafter, brought to the washery forwashing and cleaning the same so as to reduce the ash percentageand for use by metallurgical consumers. In the aforesaid process,small coal particles escaped from the washery in the form of slurryalong with water and got deposited in the pond constructed forthe storage by the Appellant. But when the pond became full, theslurry used to overflow into river Damodar and the coal gotdeposited in the river-bed. These coal particles were collected andformed into briquettes which were sold in the market for energyand fuel purpose. Considering the high commercial value of thebriquettes, the same had extensive used by steel plants andthermal power stations. The State of Bihar had accordinglygranted lease in favour of the Respondent therein for collectingsuch coal particles from Damodar river bed. The case of theAppellant was that the collection of coal took place in a plot No.370 belonging to it which formed part of the river bed ofDamodar. As such, it had property rights to collect and obtain thePage 51 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docslurry deposited in the river bed. It is in such factual backdrop itwas held that the Appellant was the owner of the Plot No. 370 ofvillage Sudamdih, and, therefore, the State Government did nothave authority under the law to make any arrangement or to settleany right with Respondents for collecting slurry deposits from PlotNo. 370. It was accordingly, held that the slurry which escapedfrom the Appellant's washery is mineral and its regulation iswithin the exclusive jurisdiction of Central Government. Havingregard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of theview that since the disposal of the mining dumps is in terms of anotified policy of the State Government, the decision in the case ofBharat Coking Coal Ltd Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra) would nothave any application in the facts of the present case.66.The question of conserving the natural resources in theState of Goa, bearing in mind the issues of sustainabledevelopment and intergenerational equity is a very serious issuehaving great public importance. We, therefore, appreciate theefforts on the part of the Petitioner-Foundation in highlightingsuch issues of public importance which had led to significantPage 52 of 537th May 2026 PILWP-44-2024-JR.docjudgments and directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inGoa Foundation-1 and Goa Foundation-2. However, for thereasons state herein above, we are of the view that, the reliefsprayed in the PIL, cannot be granted in the facts andcircumstances of the present case.67.The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.68.No order as to cost.(AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.)(SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {Page 53 of 537th May 2026