Chowgule And Company Private … vs Goa Foundation on 30 January, 2020


Supreme Court of India

Chowgule And Company Private … vs Goa Foundation on 30 January, 2020

Author: Hon’Ble The Justice

Bench: Hon’Ble The Justice, B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant

                                                   1


                                                                  REPORTABLE



                                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CIVIL APPEAL No.       839    OF 2020
                               (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12449 of 2018)

                         CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE
                         LIMITED                               ...APPELLANT(S)
                                            VERSUS
                         GOA FOUNDATION & ORS.                .... RESPONDENT(S)

                                               WITH
                               CIVIL APPEAL No. 840­842        OF 2020
                                  [@ SLP(C) Nos.12328­12330/2018]

                               CIVIL APPEAL No.        843     OF 2020
                          [@ SLP(C) NO…3028/2020 @ Diary No(s).17815/2018]

                             CIVIL APPEAL No.   844­846           OF 2020
                                   [@ SLP(C) No. 25711­25713/2018]

                                CIVIL APPEAL No.        847   OF 2020
                                      [@ SLP(C) No.24831/2018]

                                 CIVIL APPEAL No.       848   OF 2020
                                      [@ SLP(C) No. 24830/2018]

                                       SLP(C) No. 22035/2019]
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
CHARANJEET KAUR
Date: 2020.01.30
17:13:54 IST
Reason:
                               2




                       JUDGMENT

SLP(C) NOS. 12449, 12328­12330, D. NO(S).17815,
25711­25713, 24831, 24830 OF 2018

1. Delay condoned.

2. Permission to file Special Leave Petition (Civil)

D.No.17815 of 2018 is granted.

3. Leave granted.

4. The factual scenario and the questions of law involved

being common, all these appeals are being heard and decided

together.

5. The present proceedings have a chequered history.

6. Since the Government of India received information

about the rampant exploitation of natural resources in Iron

Ore mining sector in the State of Goa, it appointed Justice

M.B. Shah, a former judge of this Court, as a Commission of

Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act,

1952, by a Notification dated 22.11.2010.
3

7. Justice Shah visited Goa and after calling for and

receiving information from various authorities as well as

mining leaseholders, submitted reports to the Government of

India on 15.3.2012 and 25.4.2012. The reports were tabled

in Parliament on 7.9.2012 along with an Action Taken

Report. Consequently, the Government of Goa passed an

order dated 10.9.2012 restraining/suspending all mining

operations in the State with effect from 11.9.2012. The

Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) of the

Government of India also kept in abeyance the environmental

clearances granted to 139 mines (actually 137 mines – the

figure of 139 on account of some duplication) in the State of

Goa by an order dated 14.9.2012.

8. Subsequent to the reports given by Justice Shah, a writ

petition came to be filed by Goa Foundation in this Court

being W.P.(C) No.435 of 2012. The writ petition, being in the

nature of public interest litigation, prayed, inter alia, for

directions to the Union of India and the State of Goa to take

steps to terminate the mining leases where mining was
4

carried out in violation of various statutes. So also, various

writ petitions came to be filed in the Bombay High Court by

several mining leaseholders challenging the reports of Justice

Shah and the consequent orders passed by the State of Goa

and the Union of India. All those petitions came to be

transferred to this Court to be heard along with W.P. (C) No.

435 of 2012 filed by Goa Foundation.

9. All those petitions came to be decided by this Court by

judgment and order dated 21.4.2014 [Goa Foundation vs.

Union of India & Others1] (hereinafter referred to as “Goa

Foundation­I”) wherein this Court , amongst other

conclusions arrived at, held that all iron ore and manganese

ore leases had expired on 22.11.2007 and any mining

operation carried out by the mining leaseholders after that

date was illegal. It was also held, that all the mining

leaseholders had enjoyed a first deemed renewal of the

mining lease and for a second renewal an express order was

required to be passed in view of and in terms of Section 8(3)
1 (2014) 6 SCC 590
5

of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,

1957. For a second renewal of the mining lease, it was held,

that the State Government must apply its mind and record

reasons for renewal being in the interest of mineral

development and the necessity to renew the mining lease and

the same should also be in conformity with the Constitutional

provisions. It was also held, that the decision taken by the

State of Goa could be examined by way of judicial review. It

was also held, that the order dated 10.9.2012 of the

Government of Goa suspending mining operations and the

order dated 14.9.2012 of the MoEF, Government of India)

directing the environmental clearances granted to the mines

in the State of Goa to be kept in abeyance were proper and,

as such, not required to be interfered with and that they

would continue till decisions are taken to grant fresh leases

and fresh environmental clearances for mining projects.

10. Thereafter, quite independent of the cases pending in

this Court, writ petitions were filed by several mining

leaseholders in the Bombay High Court praying either for
6

consideration of their applications for a second renewal of the

mining lease or for the grant of a mining lease on second

renewal. The High Court heard those writ petitions and by

its judgment dated 13.8.2014 directed the State of Goa to

execute the lease deeds in favour of the leaseholders who had

already paid stamp duty pursuant to the orders of the

government in accordance with the Goa Mineral Policy 2013

and to consider the applications of other leaseholders in

accordance with the conditions laid down by this Court in

Goa Foundation­I (supra). This order of the High Court was

made a subject matter of challenge in Goa Foundation v.

Sesa Sterlite Limited and Others2 (hereinafter referred to

as “Goa Foundation­II”). The said challenge came to be

decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated

7.2.2018 (Goa Foundation­II).

11. It will be apposite to refer to the conclusions and

directions given by this Court in Goa Foundation­II (supra)

while deciding the said challenge.

2 (2018) 4 SCC 218
7

“Conclusions and directions

154. In view of our discussion, we arrive at the
following conclusions.

154.1. As a result of the decision, declaration and
directions of this Court in Goa Foundation [Goa
Foundation v. Union of India
, (2014) 6 SCC 590] ,
the State of Goa was obliged to grant fresh mining
leases in accordance with law and not second
renewals to the mining leaseholders.

154.2. The State of Goa was not under any
constitutional obligation to grant fresh mining
leases through the process of competitive bidding or
auction.

154.3. The second renewal of the mining leases
granted by the State of Goa was unduly hasty,
without taking all relevant material into
consideration and ignoring available relevant
material and therefore not in the interests of
mineral development. The decision was taken only
to augment the revenues of the State which is
outside the purview of Section 8(3) of the MMDR
Act. The second renewal of the mining leases
granted by the State of Goa is liable to be set aside
and is quashed.

154.4. The Ministry of Environment and Forests
was obliged to grant fresh environmental clearances
in respect of fresh grant of mining leases in
accordance with law and the decision of this Court
in Goa Foundation [Goa Foundation v. Union of
India
, (2014) 6 SCC 590] and not merely lift the
abeyance order of 14­9­2012.

8

154.5. The decision of the Bombay High Court
in Lithoferro v. State of Goa [Lithoferro v. State of
Goa, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 997 : (2015) 3 AIR Bom
R 32] (and batch) giving directions different from
those given by this Court in Goa Foundation [Goa
Foundation v. Union of India
, (2014) 6 SCC 590] is
set aside.

154.6. The mining leaseholders who have been
granted the second renewal in violation of the
decision and directions of this Court in Goa
Foundation [Goa Foundation v. Union of India
,
(2014) 6 SCC 590] are given time to manage
their affairs and may continue their mining
operations till 15­3­2018. However, they are
directed to stop all mining operations with effect
from 16­3­2018 until fresh mining leases (not
fresh renewals or other renewals) are granted
and fresh environmental clearances are granted.

154.7. The State of Goa should take all necessary
steps to grant fresh mining leases in accordance
with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The
Ministry of Environment and Forests should also
take all necessary steps to grant fresh
environmental clearances to those who are
successful in obtaining fresh mining leases. The
exercise should be completed by the State of Goa
and the Ministry of Environment and Forests as
early as reasonably practicable.

154.8. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps
to ensure that the Special Investigating Team and
the Team of Chartered Accountants constituted
9

pursuant to the Goa Grant of Mining Leases Policy,
2014 give their report at the earliest and the State
of Goa should implement the reports at the earliest,
unless there are very good reasons for rejecting
them.

154.9. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps
to expedite recovery of the amounts said to be due
from the mining leaseholders pursuant to the show­
cause notices issued to them and pursuant to other
reports available with the State of Goa including the
report of Special Investigating Team and the Team
of Chartered Accountants.”
[Emphasis supplied by us]

12. It is the directions given in paragraph 154.6 in Goa

Foundation­II (supra) which has given rise to the present

appeals. By the direction in paragraph 154.6 (supra), this

Court gave time to the mining leaseholders, who were granted

the second renewal, to manage their affairs permitting them

to continue their mining operations till 15.3.2018. By the

said direction, they were directed to stop all mining

operations with effect from 16.3.2018.

13. It is nobody’s case that any of the mining leaseholders

have continued the mining operations after 15.3.2018. The

only question, that arises for consideration is as to whether
10

the minerals which were mined prior to 15.3.2018, can be

permitted to be transported by the mining leaseholders or

not.

14. Construing the directions of this Court in paragraph

154.6 (supra) as restricting the mining operations till

15.3.2018 and not restricting the transport of the minerals

already mined till 15.3.2018, the State of Goa by a decision

dated 21.3.2018 decided to permit the mining leaseholders to

pay the royalty on the mineral which was already mined till

15.3.2018 and transport the same.

15. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the Goa

Foundation filed Writ Petition No. 3 of 2018 before the High

Court of Bombay at Goa. In the said petition, an interim

order dated 28.3.2018 came to be passed whereby, the

transportation of all minerals was suspended.

16. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa

while finally hearing the matter after elaborate discussion

arrived at the following finding:

11

“…According to our respectful interpretation
thus, when the Supreme Court mandated five
weeks’ time for arranging the affairs, it meant
completion of transportation as well.”

17. Observing the aforesaid, the Division Bench quashed

and set aside the decision of the State of Goa dated

21.3.2018 permitting transportation of royalty paid iron ore.

The Division Bench also held, that the State Government

should take decision regarding its ownership rights, as a

custodian of the mineral resources, and regarding its power

to take possession, to sell and dispose of iron ore in question

and utilise the proceeds for public purpose.

18. Being aggrieved thereby, various appeals/petitions are

filed before this Court. We may briefly set out the challenges

and reliefs claimed in each of the matters.

Appeal arising out of SLP(C) 12449 of 2018

The appellant/petitioner claims, that the appellant’s ore

was being loaded for being shipped for export which came to

be stopped in view of the interim order passed by the Division
12

Bench of the High Court dated 28.3.2018. The grievance of

the appellant is that the protection order dated 4.4.2018

passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.

8483­8484 of 2018 (to which we will refer subsequently) did

not extend to it as it was not a party in the said SLP. The

appellant, therefore, prays to permit the appellant to load on

the barges and on the vessels, the iron ore which is royalty

paid and which is brought on the jetties on or before

15.3.2018 so that it can be transported to their destinations.

Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12328­12330 of 2018

The appellant’s case is identical with the appellant in

earlier appeal i.e. Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.12449 of

2018. The iron ore mined by the appellant was in the process

of being loaded in a ship at High sea through barges.

However, due to the interim order of the High Court dated

28.3.2018 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2018, the

appellant had to stop the same. The appellant is also not

covered by the order dated 4.4.2018 (supra) passed by this

Court. The appellant, therefore, prays for a similar direction
13

as sought by the appellant in Appeal arising out of SLP(C)

No.12449 of 2018.

Appeals arising out of SLP(C) D. No.17815 of 2018

The appellant herein deals in export of iron ore. The

appellant claims to have entered into an international

contract for export of ore and accordingly had made

preparation and loaded barges to be transported to vessel

berthed at High sea. However, in view of the interim order

dated 28.3.2018 (supra) it could not carry forward the said

operations. The appellant is also not covered by the order

dated 4.4.2018 (supra) passed by this Court as it was not a

party in the SLP. The appellant also claims the same reliefs

as sought by the appellant in Appeal arising out of SLP(C)

No.12449 of 2018.

Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 25711­25713 of 2018

The appellants herein are engaged in trade of minerals.

The appellants had purchased iron ore from the mine of some

leaseholders. After purchasing, they have transported the
14

same to their jetties and stockyards on or before 15.3.2018.

The appellants in pursuance of the order passed by this

Court dated 11.5.2018 (to which also we will refer

subsequently) are praying for permission to transport ore

lying at jetties and stockyards on their sale.

Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.24831 and 24830 of 2018

The appellants in both these appeals herein submit,

that though they have extracted the iron ore prior to

15.3.2018, it is lying either at the stockyard or at the pithead

and, therefore, seek permission to transport the same.

19. We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the appellant in lead matter [i.e.

Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.12449 of 2018], Shri Gourab

Banerji, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Yashraj Singh

Deora, learned counsel for the other appellants. We have

heard Shri A. N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor
15

General appearing for the State of Goa, Shri Vikramjit

Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for

the Union of India and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned

counsel for the Goa Foundation.

20. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the appellant would submit, that the perusal of paragraph

154.6 of the judgment of this Court in Goa Foundation­II

(supra) would clearly show, that what was permitted by this

Court was continuation of mining till 15.3.2018. He submits,

that there is a specific prohibition in the said paragraph that

after 15.3.2018 no mining activity could be carried on. He,

therefore, submits, that what was done by this Court was to

specifically prohibit mining after 15.3.2018. However, the

order did not postulate restriction on transport of the iron ore

which was already mined in the period of five weeks i.e. from

7.2.2018 [the date of the judgment and order of this Court

passed in Goa Foundation­II (supra)] to 15.3.2018. He

would submit, that the perusal of the order of this Court

dated 4.4.2018 (passed in SLP(C) No.8483­8484 of 2018 and
16

connected matters ) and 11.5.2018 [passed in SLP(C)

No.12449 of 2018 and connected matters] would clearly

show, that the intent of paragraph 154.6 (supra) was to

prohibit the mining from 16.3.2018 and not the

transportation of the ore which was already mined prior to

15.3.2018.

21. Shri Rohatgi, relying on Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals

(Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals)

Concession Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the said

Rules), would further submit, that the legislative policy is to

grant six calendar months to remove ore mineral extracted

from the date of the expiry or sooner termination of the lease

term. He, therefore, submit, that taking into consideration

the legislative policy, it is necessary that the mining

leaseholders be permitted to transport the iron ore mineral

which is already mined by them. He submits, that the

finding of the High Court that paragraph 154.6 (supra) also

prohibits transportation of the mineral which is already

mined prior to 15.3.2018, is not only totally incorrect but is
17

in ignorance of the orders passed by this Court dated

4.4.2018 and 11.5.2018.

22. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Goa also

submits, that the State has no objection for transportation of

the mineral which is mined prior to 15.3.2018 and on which

the royalty is paid to the Government.

23. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Goa

Foundation, vehemently opposed the appeals. He would

submit, that the mining leases of the various lessees had

already expired in 2007. They were illegally continuing their

mining operations. He submits, that the same has been

found in the judgment of this Court in Goa Foundation­I

(supra). He further submits, that in Goa Foundation­II

(supra) this Court also found that there was rampant illegal

excavation and, therefore, such stringent directions were

issued by this Court. He submits, that the Division Bench of

the High Court has rightly construed the words “to manage

their affairs” used by this Court in paragraph 154.6 (supra) to

include all activities relating to mining and transportation
18

thereof. He submits, that the lessees in the period of seven

weeks from 7.2.2018 till 15.3.2018 have extracted 2.2 MT of

iron ore. It is submitted, that if the permission is granted to

transport this iron ore, it will amount to giving a premium for

illegal activity of the leaseholder. He, therefore, vehemently

submits, that all appeals are liable to be dismissed.

24. To appreciate the entire controversy, we have to

consider what is the import of paragraph 154.6 of the

judgment of this Court in Goa Foundation­II (supra).

The direction given in the said paragraph are two­fold.

Firstly, the mining leaseholders are given time to manage

their affairs and to continue their mining operations till

15.3.2018. The second is a negative direction. They are

directed to stop all mining operations with effect from

16.3.2018 until fresh mining leases (not fresh renewals or

other renewals) are granted and fresh environmental

clearances are granted.

25. Applying the principle of plain and literal interpretation,

the direction would stop all mining activities from 16.3.2018.
19

However, from the date of the order i.e. 7.2.2018 till

15.3.2018, the lessees were permitted to continue with the

mining activities and manage their affairs.

26. As could be seen, after the Government of Goa had

taken a decision to permit the royalty paid iron ore to be

transported which was mined prior to 15.3.2018 by its

decision dated 21.3.2018, the Goa Foundation had

approached the High Court and the High Court had stayed

the said direction by its interim order dated 28.3.2018. The

said interim order dated 28.3.2018 reads thus:

“11. In the meantime, there shall be an ad interim
relief in terms of the bracketed portion of prayer
clause (d), which reads thus:

“Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition,
a direction to the State Government to order an
immediate suspension of transport of all minerals
related to the mining activity of 88
leaseholders……”

27. Being aggrieved thereby, a Special Leave Petition (Civil)

Nos. 8483­8484 of 2018 came to be filed before this Court.

The matter came up for hearing before the same Bench which

had delivered the judgment in Goa Foundation­II (supra).

An order dated 4.4.2018 came to be passed by the same
20

Bench of this Court in the said Special Leave Petition (Civil)

Nos. 8483­8484 of 2018. The said order dated 4.4.2018

passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 8483­8484 of

2018 reads thus:

“It is categorically stated by learned counsel for
the petitioners that the iron ore which is sought to
be loaded on the vessels in the Port area in Goa is
royalty paid and it was removed and brought to the
jetties on or before 15th March, 2018.

Under these circumstances, we are of the view
that the iron ore which is royalty paid and which is
lying on the jetties on or before 15th March, 2018
should be permitted to be loaded on the barges and
on the vessels so that they can be transported to
their destinations.

The State of Goa will ensure and confirm that
only that iron ore is loaded which is royalty paid
and which is lying in the jetties on or before 15th
March, 2018.

Insofar as the other issues are concerned,
since the matter is already pending in the High
Court, we do not propose to deal with them and
leave it to the High Court to adjudicate.

The special leave petitions are disposed of”

28. An identical order dated 11.5.2018 came to be passed

by the same Bench in the present lead appeal arising out of

SLP(C) No. 12449 of 2018, which reads thus:

“Issue notice.

21

Mr. Shishir Deshpande and Mr. Prashant
Bhushan, learned counsel accept notice.

We have heard learned counsel for the
parties at some length.

It is categorically stated by learned
counsel for the petitioners that the iron ore
which is sought to be loaded on the vessels in
the Port area in Goa is royalty paid and it was
removed and brought to the jetties on or before
15th March, 2018.

Under these circumstances, we are of the
view that the iron ore which is royalty paid and
which is lying on the jetties on or before 15th
March, 2018 should be permitted to be loaded
on the barges and on the vessels so that they
can be transported to their destinations.

The State of Goa will ensure and confirm
that only that iron ore is loaded which is
royalty paid and which is lying in the jetties on
or before 15th March, 2018.

Insofar as the other issues are concerned,
since the matter is already pending in the High
Court, we do not propose to deal with them
and leave it to the High Court 3 to adjudicate.

An allegation has been made by learned
counsel appearing for Goa Foundation that
rampant mining took place after the order
passed on 7th February, 2018 till 15th March,
2018.

22

We would like to have full details about
the mining that has taken place during the
period from 7th February, 2018 till 15th
March, 2018.

We make it clear that there will be no
movement of iron ore until further orders
except the iron ore which has reached the
jetties.

List the matter in the third week of July,
2018.”

29. It could thus be seen, that the Division Bench which

had delivered the judgment in Goa Foundation­II (supra) by

subsequent orders dated 4.4.2018 and 11.5.2018 has

permitted the iron ore which was royalty paid and which was

lying on the jetties on or before 15.3.2018 to be loaded on the

barges and on the vessels so that it can be transported to

their destinations.

30. It will also be relevant to refer to Rule 12(1)(gg) of the

said Rules.

12. Terms and conditions of a mining lease.­ (1)
Every mining lease shall be subject to the following
conditions:

(a)
…….

23

(gg) the lessee may, after paying the rents, rates
and royalties payable under the Act and rules made
thereunder or under the lease deed, at the expiry or
sooner termination of the lease term or within six
calendar months thereafter (unless the lease is
terminated for default of the lessee, and in that case
at any time not less than three calendar months nor
more than six calendar months after such
termination) take down and remove for its own
benefit, all or any ore mineral excavated during the
currency of the lease, engines, machinery, plant,
buildings structures, tramways, railways and other
works, erection and conveniences which may have
been erected, set up or placed by the lessee in or
upon the leased lands and which the lessee is not
bound to deliver to the State Government or which
the State Government does not desire to purchase.”

31. A perusal of clause (gg) of Rule 12(1) of the said Rules

would reveal, that on the expiry or sooner termination of the

lease term, six months period is granted to the lessees to

remove for its own benefit, all or any ore mineral excavated

during the currency of the lease, engines, machinery, plant,

buildings, structures, tramways, railways and other works,

erections and conveniences which may have been erected, set

up or placed by the lessee in or upon the leased lands. An

exception is carved out in case of lease being terminated for
24

default of the lessee wherein, period so to be granted is not

less than three months and not more than six calendar

months after such termination. However, it is subject to the

lessee paying the rents, rates and royalties payable under the

Act and the Rules made thereunder.

32. Taking overall view of the matter i.e. paragraph 154.6 of

the judgment of this Court in Goa Foundation­II (supra); the

orders dated 4.4.2018 and 11.5.2018 passed by the same

Bench which delivered the judgment in Goa Foundation­II

(supra) permitting the minerals/iron ore to be transported

which were royalty paid and which was lying on the jetties on

or before 15.3.2018; and the legislative policy granting six

months’ period for removal of the mineral for the benefit of

the lessees, we find that the view taken by the Division Bench

of the Bombay High court is not correct. If this Court in Goa

Foundation­II (supra) intended to prohibit the mining as well

as transportation of the minerals/iron ore with effect from

16.3.2018 nothing precluded it from doing so. However, the
25

words used were that the lessees are permitted to manage

their affairs and are permitted to continue mining till

15.3.2018. The only prohibition contained in the said order

after 15.3.2018 is for carrying out mining operations. Not

only this but the same Bench which has decided the Goa

Foundation­II (supra) itself on two occasions has permitted

the mineral to be transported from the jetties. We do not find,

that there is any rationale in differentiating between the iron

ore which is either at the jetties or at the stockyards or

pitheads, if the same is mined prior to the date of the

prohibition i.e. 15.3.2018. There is no doubt that the

ownership of the ore is that of the party that has raised the

ore. The ore which has been permitted to be transported is

on condition of payment of royalty. We see no reason why the

owners should not be allowed to transport their own ore.

33. It will not be out of place to mention here the specific

stand of the State Government before the High Court that the

State is monitoring to ensure that only such of the mineral is
26

permitted to be transported which is mined prior to

15.3.2018.

34. We are, therefore, inclined to allow all the appeals.

Order accordingly. We set aside the impugned judgment and

order dated 4.5.2018 passed by the High Court and uphold

the decision of the State of Goa dated 21.3.2018, which

permits transportation of mineral/iron ore which is mined

prior to 15.3.2018.

35. Needless to state, that the transportation of the mineral

would be only in respect of such minerals on which royalty is

paid. The appellants/mining leaseholders would be

permitted to transport the royalty paid ore/mineral from the

jetties/stockyard or pitheads on the basis of the valid transit

permits issued to them by the competent authority of the

State Government.

36. Taking into consideration the legislative policy as

contained in clause (gg) of Rule 12(1) of the said Rules, we
27

direct that all such transportation shall be completed within

a period of six months from today.

37. It is needless to state that all other directions contained

in paragraph 154 of the judgment of this Court in Goa

Foundation­II (supra) shall be strictly complied with by the

State of Goa.

38. All pending applications including the application for

intervention shall stand disposed of.

SLP(C) No. 22035/2019

39. De­tagged. To be listed before the appropriate Bench in

its due course.

…………………..CJI.

[S.A. BOBDE]

………………….J.

[B.R. GAVAI]
28

………………….J.

[SURYA KANT]

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 30, 2020



Source link