Daijiworld Media Network – Panaji
Panaji, Sep 29: The Bombay High Court at Goa has rejected a review petition filed by a mining company seeking permission to operate its leases on the basis of a first renewal granted for the 1987-2007 period.
The court also imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner, directing that the amount be deposited in a fund to be created by the Goa High Court Bar Association and titled the ‘Legal Training/Education Fund’.
During the hearing, Advocate General Devidas Pangam informed the court that the petitioner had withdrawn its Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court against the May 8, 2026 judgment that was under review. He also submitted that no specific leave had been granted to the petitioner to approach the High Court with the review petition.
Pangam further submitted that mining lease lot No. 18, which was the subject matter of the writ petition, had since been allotted through an e-auction to Dharati Dredging under a letter of intent dated July 3. The first instalment for the allotment, along with the required security deposits, had already been paid.
Counsel for the review petitioner argued that the company’s case was different as its application for first renewal had remained pending. It was submitted that the Goa Foundation-1 judgment on illegal mining proceeded on the assumption that the leases covered by the ruling were those where first renewals had been granted, lease deeds executed and mining operations carried out.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the company fell within an exception to the leases covered by the Goa Foundation-1 judgment.
Rejecting the review plea, the division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S Jamsandekar observed that the court had already considered the Goa Foundation-1 judgment and the subsequent Goa Foundation-2 judgment while arriving at its earlier conclusion.
The bench held that the detailed exercise undertaken by the court in interpreting the earlier judgments did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore did not provide grounds for review.