[Mines & Minerals Act] 'Fresh Auction Not Required For Disposing Of Mining Dumps Created Under Approved Plan': Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that a fresh auction is not mandatory for the disposal of inventoried mining dumps created pursuant to mining operations carried out under an approved mining plan. The Court observed that where such dumps are depicted in the approved mining plan, and statutory dues including conversion fees and penalties have been paid, the State Government is entitled...
The Bombay High Court at Goa has held that a fresh auction is not mandatory for the disposal of inventoried mining dumps created pursuant to mining operations carried out under an approved mining plan. The Court observed that where such dumps are depicted in the approved mining plan, and statutory dues including conversion fees and penalties have been paid, the State Government is entitled to permit erstwhile leaseholders to remove the dumps without conducting a fresh auction.
A Division Bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Amit S. Jamasandekar was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Goa Foundation challenging Clause 2(2) of the “Policy for Regulating Iron Ore Dump Handling in the State of Goa, 2023.” The petitioner contended that the policy illegally permitted ex-lessees to handle mining dumps situated outside lease areas without auction, contrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and judgments of the Supreme Court concerning disposal of natural resources. The challenge was confined to inventoried dumps situated outside lease areas on government and private lands.
The Court examined Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the 2023 Policy. Under Clause 2.1, dumps not approved or depicted in the mining plan were treated as completely illegal and liable to compulsory auction by the Government. Clause 2.2, however, permitted erstwhile leaseholders to remove inventoried dumps situated outside lease areas but depicted in approved mining plans, subject to payment of conversion fees, penalties, royalty and compliance with statutory requirements.
The Court observed that mining dumps are generated as a consequence of lawful mining operations conducted under approved mining plans and cannot automatically be treated as fresh mineral resources requiring auction. It held that inventoried dumps shown in the approved mining plans stood on a different footing from illegal dumps not reflected in the mining plan. The Court noted that under the policy, only dumps lacking approval or depiction in the mining plan were liable to compulsory auction. It observed:
“… 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.”
The Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish that Clause 2(2) of the 2023 Policy was contrary either to the MMDR Act or to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It observed that the policy draws a clear distinction between illegal dumps and inventoried dumps generated during lawful mining operations under approved mining plans.
The Court also rejected the contention that a separate mining lease was necessary for handling such dumps. It observed that the dumps were already products of mining activity undertaken under approved mining plans, and their handling under the policy did not amount to the grant of fresh mining rights requiring a separate auction process.
Accordingly, the Court upheld Clause 2(2) of the 2023 Policy and dismissed the public interest litigation.
Case Title: The Goa Foundation v. State of Goa [Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition No. 44 of 2024]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 251