Analysis of Mineral Transportation Extension in Goa

This legal case summary focuses on the in-depth analysis conducted by the court regarding the extension of time for mineral transportation in Goa. The Court’s interpretation of Rule 12(1)(hh) and its application to lease holders forms the crux of the discussion. Stay tuned to understand the complexities surrounding mineral removal post-lease termination in the state of Goa.


  • M.A.No.1653 of 2020 is filed by a person claiming to be a lease holder but was not a party to the Civil Appeals.
  • The applicant cannot seek extension of time for transportation of mined minerals due to policy upheld by the State on 21.03.2018.
  • Application for intervention is dismissed as the applicant was not a party to the Civil Appeals.
  • The policy decision of the State of Goa dated 21.03.2018 to permit transportation of mineral mined prior to 15.03.2018 was deemed valid.
  • The interpretation of paragraph 154.6 of the decision in Goa Foundation-II led to a valid policy decision.
  • Rule 12(1)(gg) of The Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 allows a period of 6 months for lessees to remove excavated material after lease termination.
  • The judgment dated 30.01.2020, referred to as Goa Foundation-III, clarified that the prohibition in paragraph 154.6 of Goa Foundation-II was only for mining operations, not transportation.
  • An extension of 6 months was granted by the court for lease holders to transport mineral extracted before 15.03.2018, which expired on 30.07.2020.
  • Due to lockdown from 24.03.2020, applications were made for a 6-month extension from 01.10.2020 for transportation of mineral extracted before 15.03.2018.
  • A lessee who did not challenge the High Court order filed an application for intervention seeking extension benefits.
  • Goa Foundation filed an application seeking various reliefs including clarification on the judgment’s application, recovery of amounts involved in violations, and possession of mining leases by the State of Goa.
  • Intervention application (M.A. No.1653 of 2020) was mentioned as capable of being disposed without much ado as the applicants did not challenge the High Court order before the Supreme Court.

Also Read: Analysis of High Courts’ Jurisdiction and Court Orders Under Article 142


  • The controversy revolves around whether the time given to lease holders to manage their affairs up to 15.03.2018 includes time to remove mined minerals.
  • Goa Foundation opposes the applications for extension of time citing various grounds, including non-payment of royalty on certain ore, low quantity of ore with advance royalty paid, and the risk of misuse of extended time by lease holders.
  • The expired mining leases issue was highlighted in previous court cases, leading to further litigations and decisions.
  • Key issues to address include whether the right to remove mined minerals is only for ‘royalty paid ore’ or upon payment of royalty at the time of disposal, and whether the State Government should invoke Rule 12(1)(hh) of the Rules.
  • The applicability of Section 9(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, regarding the liability to pay royalty by mining lease holders granted after the Act’s commencement, is relevant to the case.
  • The question of when royalty is payable cannot be definitively answered at this stage of miscellaneous applications in a disposed of matter.
  • The significance of whether royalty has been paid or not came up in the second round of litigation concerning minerals excavated before 15.03.2018 and removed to jetties.

Also Read: Electoral Malpractices in Mayor Election


  • Rule 12(1)(hh) was not used before the Court’s previous judgment, so the judgment from 30.01.2020 allowing six months to remove material stands final.
  • The application for clarification was filed after the six months’ period expired, making it invalid.
  • The State still has the authority to use Rule 12(1)(hh) if needed.
  • Disputes arose over the quantity of mineral left unmined on the lease-hold area.
  • Rejecting objections would mean reviewing the 30.01.2020 judgment without a formal review application.
  • The Government claims to have complete details on the excavated mineral and restricts removal to match their records.
  • Goa Foundation seeks specific directions in M.A.No.1625 of 2020 regarding the same issues.
  • Lessees requested extensions citing delays in obtaining transit permits and COVID-19 lockdown impact.
  • Any property left on or in the leased land after the lease term expires becomes the property of the Government if not removed by the lessee.
  • The property must remain on the land for six months after the lease term ends and not be removed by the lessee within one month of notification by the State Government.
  • Goa Foundation’s contention that the State Government should have confiscated the mineral on site under Rule 12(1)(hh) may be valid.

Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated


  • Lessees granted time until end of January 2021 for removing minerals mined before 15.03.2018
  • Quantities to be determined by government records
  • Failure to remove minerals may result in invocation of Rule 12(1)(hh)


Case Number: MA-001260 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *