HC halted ore movement as mines director refused to take the onus

| MARCH 31, 2018, 03:53 AM IST


the goan I network

PANAJI

The Bombay High Court at Goa, which on Thursday refused to modify its earlier ad-interim order halting the transport of ore, made it clear that it issued the order only because the Director of Mines and Geology refused to own up responsibility for the transport of ore which was being carried out after March 15.  

The order refusing to vacate the earlier specifies the reasons why the transport was halted.   

“The paragraphs... [of the previous order] clearly show the circumstances in which we were constrained to pass the order when we found that the Officer who had passed the order was not ready to take any responsibility for the consequences,” the High Court recorded in its order.  

“We, in fact, inquired with the learned Advocate General as to whether the Director of Mines and Geology, who is present in the Court, would take a responsibility for this decision by filing an affidavit since the Minutes of the Meeting are signed by him, we were informed that he will have to take instructions from the State Government and he was not ready to take the responsibility. Thus, we do not have any commitment of any Officer that the actions of the State Government are in consonance with the Judgment of the Apex Court,” the High Court noted in its initial order passed on Wednesday.  

Several mining leaseholders had approached the Bombay High Court at Goa seeking that the ad-interim order is vacated.  

The mining leaseholders have submitted before the High Court that the ore which has been removed from the respective mines prior to March 15, 2018 and on which royalty has been paid, cannot be made subject to the order passed by the Supreme

Court.  

They said that the ore has been brought to the jetty and if it is not allowed to be loaded onto the vessels, various prejudicial situations would arise, including payment of demurrage charges, etc.  

They relied on Rule 12(1) (gg) of the Minerals (Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 to contend that even after expiry/termination of the lease, for a period of three calendar months and not more than six calendar months, the lessee is entitled to remove any ore or mineral excavated during the currency of the lease.  

The leaseholders also argued that since the Goa Foundation has moved this Court seeking to exercise powers of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act and under Article 215 of the Constitution of India for breach of the order of the Apex Court, they must apply to the Apex Court.  


HC ORDER: CLEARING THE AIR

We were constrained to pass the order when we  found that the Officer who had passed the order was not ready to take any responsibility for the consequences 

We inquired with the learned Advocate General as  to whether the Director of Mines and Geology, who was present in the Court, would take a responsibility for this decision by filing an affidavit since the Minutes of the meeting are signed by him

We were  informed that he will have to take instructions from the State  Government and he was not ready to take the responsibility

We do not have any commitment of any officer that the actions of the State government are in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court

Share this