Valmiki Menezes, J.

1. The Petitioner has impugned an Order dated 05.11.2013 passed by the Respondent No.2 Director of Mines & Geology (DMG), to the extent that it pertains to TC No.44/1951 (the Petitioner’s Mining Lease), and has further challenged a Revisional Order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Respondent No.3, the Revisionary Authority, Ministry of Mines; in addition, the Petitioner has sought the following directions to Respondents 1 and 2.

                   (i) Respondent No.1 and 2 to withdraw Order dated 05.11.2013 and Order dated 08.11.2013 to the extent it pertains to TC No.44/1951;

                   (ii) Respondent 1 and 2 to grant a first renewal order in favour of the Petitioners in respect of Mining Lease, as was directed by this Court.

                   (iii) Direct Respondent 1 and 2 not to take any coercive action against the Petitioners on the impugned Orders, during pendency of the Petition.

The Petitioners have also sought writ of mandamus to direct Respondent 1 and 2 to withdraw Order dated 05.11.2013, and for a declaration that the Petitioners’ mining lease stands extended till 31.03.2020 in terms of Section 8A of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act, 1951.

2. It is the Petitioner’s case that Petitioner No.1 Company was granted a mining concession by the Portuguese Government, more particularly in respect of the Mine bearing TC No.44/1951 Joleracho Dongor situated at Maina/Cavorem, in Quepem Taluka, Goa. According to the Petitioners, the mining concession was treated as a mining lease pursuant to the coming into force of the Goa, Daman & Diu Mining Concession (Abolition and Declaration) As Mining Leases Act, 1987 (Abolition Act). According to the Petitioner, by virtue of Section 4 of the Abolition Act, the Petitioners’ mining concession was deemed to be a mining lease granted under the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 (MMDR Act). According to the Petitioners, under Section 5 of the Abolition Act, the Petitioners deemed mining lease, stood extended by six months after it expired on 22.11.1987. According to the Petitioner, it filed its first application for renewal of the mining lease in terms of Rule 24-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (MCR) on 21.08.1988 on which no decision was taken by the Government for a period of six months. According to the provisions of Rule 24-A of the Concession Rules, the application is deemed to be refused on expiration of the period of six months, on which the Petitioner challenged the deemed refusal on 14.08.1989, in a Revision before the Central Government. The Revisional Authority set aside the deemed refusal on 21.08.1989, remanding the matter back to the Government of Goa for a decision on merits.

                   On remand, the Government once again rejected the application for renewal of the mining lease on 25.04.1990 against which a second revision application was filed, which was allowed by the Revisional Authority on 01.06.1993, remanding the matter back to the Government of Goa for a decision on merits. Thereafter, the Government yet again rejected the application for renewal of the lease on 26.02.2002, which order came to be upheld by the Revisional Authority on 11.03.2003.

3. It is the Petitioner’s case that within two years of the rejection of the Revision filed by the Petitioner by the Central Government, the Petitioner filed a representation before the Government of Goa on 07.12.2005 seeking reconsideration of its earlier decision to reject extension of the mining lease, on the ground that it had paid all dues and obtained a Clearance Certificate, the lack of production of which was the only reason why the earlier application for renewal had been rejected. According to the Petitioner, on a direction of this Court passed on 16.12.2005 in Writ Petition No.478 of 2005, the State Government was required to adjudicate upon the representation; the State Government, on 11.07.2007 decided to grant a renewal of the lease subject to the Petitioners obtaining Environment Clearances(EC) and clearance from the Forest Department. The Petitioner then obtained an Environment Clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest on 02.03.2009, pursuant to which it worked the mine in the year 2010 and 2011 and paid royalty to the State for that period. The Supreme Court, by interim Order of 05.10.2012 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) 435 of 2012 directed the Central Empowerment Committee (CEC) to submit its report on mining operations in leases identified in the Report of the Justice Shah Commission, in the State of Goa, and further directed that till further orders, all mining operations in leases identified in the said Report, as also transportation of iron and manganese ore from the leases, whether lying at the mine head or stockyard, shall remain suspended.

4. According to the Petitioner, as a consequence of this Order, and since the lease of the Petitioner’s mine was one of those listed in the Justice Shah Commission Report, they were constrained to stop operations in the mine. On 18.10.2013, the DMG issued a Public Notice calling upon all lessees mentioned in the Notice, including that of the Petitioner, wherein it stated that the mining lease was deemed to have lapsed on the ground that it was not worked. On 05.11.2013, the DMG declared various leases, including that of the Petitioner to have lapsed as abolished with effect from 22.11.2007.

The Petitioner challenged Order dated 05.11.2013 before the Revisional Authority (Respondent No.3) who dismissed the Petitioner’s Revision on 25.03.2015. It is these three Orders dated 05.11.2013, 08.11.2013, and the Revisional Order dated 25.03.2015 that are challenged in this Petition on various grounds and on the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner which are referred to below:

5. SUBMISSIONS:

On behalf of the Petitioner, Learned Senior Advocate Shri Subodh Kantak has advanced the following submissions:

It was submitted that the impugned Revisional Order is patently illegal as it proceeds on the premise that the Supreme Court, in its Judgment passed in Goa Foundation v/s Union of India and others (2014) 6 SCC 590 (GF-1) had held that the mining leases lapsed in the year 2007 which finding was perverse. It was submitted that on a reading of the Judgement, no such abolition or lapsing of lease was held to have occurred, and on the contrary, the Supreme Court had categorically held that mining, post 2007, could not be done on the ground that it was done on the basis of a deemed renewal, since such renewal could be granted only if the State had recorded that it was in the interest of the mineral development. It is the submission of the Petitioner, that it is in fact seeking the implementation of paragraph 87.1 of the Judgment of GF-I, since the Petitioner’s lease has in fact been granted for the first period commencing 22.11.1987 and the second renewal was applied for, without prejudice to the Petitioner’s contention, that its case was not covered by the GF-I.

It was then contended that the Petitioner’s first lease was not a deemed extended lease covered under paragraph 87.1 of GF-I since the application for first extension had been rejected and after two rounds of challenge in Revision, had been specifically granted by the Government of Goa on 11.07.2007. According to the Learned Counsel, therefore, the Petitioner’s lease is alive and has been specifically granted by an Order which is covered under Rule 24-A of the MCR. It is further submitted that the case of the Petitioner falls under Section 8 of the MMDR, as the Petitioner had applied for renewal for the first time within one year from the date of expiry of the lease under Rule 24-A and was actually granted in terms of the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 8 thereof and would operate for a period of twenty years. It was contended that the Petitioner had, on the basis of grant of the first renewal, applied for the second renewal on 09.10.2007, prior to the passing of the interim order in GF-1, on 22.11.2007. On these submissions, the Petitioner claims that the Judgment of GF-1 makes an exception to those leases which were granted in accordance with Section 8 of the MMDR and only covers leases which were deemed granted under Rule 24-A of the MCR. Reliance was placed by Learned Counsel for the Petitoner on Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd v/s Shramik Sena((2001) 7 SCC 469).

6. On behalf of the State, the Learned Advocate General, Shri. Devidas Pangam has advanced the following submissions:

                   a. The Learned Advocate General has taken us through the judgement of the Supreme Court in GF-I and submits that in paragraphs 82 and 87 to 89 thereof, the Supreme Court has declared and directed that all mining operations pursuant to leases that expired on 22.11.1987 or that were deemed to have expired on 22.11.2007 were deemed to be illegal, and consequently upheld Orders dated 10.09.2012 of the Government of Goa suspended all mining activities in the State of Goa, and has further upheld Order dated 14.09.2012 of the Ministry of Environment & Forest by which it directed all environmental clearances granted to the mines in the State of Goa be kept in abeyance. It was then submitted that the Petitioner’s mining lease, whether specifically renewed or deemed renewed would be covered by the GF-1 Judgment, and no exception would be made insofar as leases which were renewed prior to the GF-1 Judgment. It was then submitted that the purported order of renewal of lease dated 11.08.2007 was not an actual grant of lease but was only an in principle grant.

                   It was further contended that the Petitioner had chosen to file an intervention application before the Supreme Court in the GF-1 Petition on 16.09.2013, and that intervention application, having not been specifically decided is deemed to have been dismissed when the GF-1 Judgment was pronounced. The Learned Advocate General submits that having participated in the proceedings of the GF-1 Petition, not only by filing intervention but by advancing arguments in the Petition, through a Counsel, and yet not raising the issues raised in this Petition, that the Petitioner’s case claiming to have a live lease and not a deemed lease, was not covered by the Judgment, is now hit by the principles of constructive res judicata. It was then contended that even at the time the second Judgment in Goa Foundation v/s Sesa Sterlite Limited and Others reported in (2018) 4 SCC 218 (GF-II) was passed on 07.02.2018, the Petitioner’s still did not approach the Supreme Court either with a Review Application contending the case put before this Court in the present Petition nor did it file any separate proceedings to challenge the Orders dated 10.09.2012 of the Government suspending mining operations nor the Order of the MoEF of 14.09.2012 keeping the ECs in abeyance, even though they specifically cover the mine of the Petitioner. Reliance was placed on the following Judgments:

                   (i) Devilal Modi v/s State tax Officer, Ratlam and Others(1964 SCC OnlIne SC 17);

                   (ii) Shiv Chander More and Others v/s Lieutenant Governor and Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 744

                   (iii) Vedanta Limited & Anr v/s Director of Mines and Geology & Ors, in Writ Petition No.1005 of 2019, vide order dated 25.11.2019 passed by High Court of Bombay at Goa

                   (iv) Lithoferro v/s Director of Mines and Geology & Ors, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3420

                   (v) Vendanta Ltd v/s The Goa Foundation and Ors reported in (2021) 7 SCC 206

7. In rejoinder, the Petitioners have placed on record the copy of the intervention application which bears IA No.78/2013 filed in WP (Civil) No.435 of 2012 (GF-I Petition) to contend that the application for intervention filed by the Petitioner was with respect to a different mining lease bearing TC No.28/1952, in relation to which, on grounds similar to the ones raised herein, a separate Writ Petition No.83/2017 has been filed and is pending disposal. According to the Petitioner therefore, the mere filing of an intervention application in respect of a different mining lease, which was never decided, would not preclude the Petitioner from challenging the impugned Orders before this Court. It was further contended that there was no cause for the Petitioner to either approach the Supreme Court with regard to the present mining lease, since this was a case where the lease in fact granted, and not a case of a deemed lease covered by the GF-I Judgment.

The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the principles of constructive res judicata could never apply to the present case since the decision of the Supreme Court in GF-I was rendered on specific facts and proceeded on the basis that it was dealing with cases of only deemed renewals of a lease under Rule 24-A of the MCR, as on 22.11.1987 and cases of extension of leases after twenty years from 22.11.2007. Further, it was contended that the principle of res judicata would not apply since the Petitioner was never a party to the GF-I Petition but was only heard as an intervenor, and that too with regard to a totally different mining lease. In any case, the Petitioners, is a case of rejection of extension of a lease at the initial stage and grant of the same in the year 2007.

8. We have considered the record of the Petition, submissions and case law submitted by the parties. From the submissions advanced before us, the main issue to be decided is whether the Petitioner’s case is covered by the declaration issued by the Supreme Court in the GF-I Judgment which was further clarified in the GF-II Judgment; and further, whether the conduct of the Petitioner, considering the specific facts of its case would justify grant of the reliefs sought in the Petition.

9. To answer the aforesaid issue, we would first refer to certain passages of the various Judgments, which the Petitioner contends, declarations of the Supreme Court therein, would not deny the Petitioner’s case for grant of the reliefs.

In GF-I (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraphs 2 and 4 thereof records the historical facts which led to the applicability of the MMDR Act, the MCR to mining leases in Goa post its liberation from Portuguese rule and the effect of upholding the constitutional validity of the Abolition Act. The Supreme Court also refers to its Order of 05.10.2012, giving interim directions in the Petition, reproduced in the footnote therein which are quoted below:

                   “4 WP (C) No. 435 of 2012, order dated 5-10-2012 (SC), wherein it was directed:

                   "1. Issue notice …….

                   2. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) is directed to submit its report on this writ petition, which is essentially based on the report of Justice M.B. Shah (a former Judge of this Court), Chairman of the Commission of Enquiry for illegal mining of iron ore and manganese. The Secretaries of the Ministries of Mines and Forest and Environment, Union of India, and the Chief Secretary of the State of Goa are directed to furnish all information that CEC may require for making its report for the Court in light of the Shah Commission's Report.

                   3. A preliminary report from CEC should reach this Court within four weeks from today. Put up on receipt of the report from CEC. Till further orders, all mining operations in the leases identified in the Shah Commission's Report and transportation of iron ore and manganese ore from those leases, whether lying at the mine-head or stockyards, shall remain suspended, as recommended in the Commission's Report.”

10. Reference to the interim order and its effect and implementation is then made in paragraphs 8 to 10 which are reproduced below:

                   “8. On 5-10-2012 this Court issued notice in Goa Foundation v. Union of India to the respondents and directed the Central Empowered Committee (for short "CEC) to submit its report on the writ petition and also directed that till further orders. 611 mining operations in the leases Identified in the report of the Justice Shah Commission and transportation of iron ore and stockyards, shall remain suspended, as recommended in the report of the manganese ore from those leases, whether lying at the mine head or Justice Shah Commission.

                   9. Different mining lessees of the State of Goa and the Goa Mining for a declaration that the report of the Shah Commission is illegal and for Association also filed writ petitions in the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench quashing the findings in the Report of the Justice Shah Commission and also for quashing the Order dated 10-9-2012 of the Government of Goa suspending mining operations in the State of Goa and the Order dated 14-9-2012 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, of Goa be kept in abeyance. These writ petitions have been transferred to this Court for hearing along with the hearing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 435 of 2012 filed by Goa Foundation.

                   10. The writ petitions and the transferred cases were heard during passed by this Court directing that the inventory of the excavated mineral ores lying in different mines/stockyards/jetties/ports in the State of Goa made by the Department of Mines and Geology of the Government of Goa be verified and thereafter the whole of the inventoried mineral ores be sold by e-auction and the sale proceeds (less taxes and royalty) be retained in separate fixed deposits (leasewise) by the State of Goa till the Court delivers the judgment in these matters on the legality of the leases from which the mineral ores were extracted. The Court has also directed that this entire process of verification of the inventory, e-auction and deposit of sale proceeds be monitored by a Monitoring Committee appointed by the Court. By the said order dated 11-11-20135, this Court also constituted an Expert Committee to conduct a macro-EIA study on what should be the ceiling of annual excavation of iron ore from the State of Goa considering its iron ore resources and its carrying capacity, keeping in mind the principles of b sustainable development and intergenerational equity and all other relevant factors. On 11-11-2013 the case was also reserved for judgment.”

11. The main issues raised in GF-I and the submissions recorded on behalf of the parties are recorded in paragraphs 15 to 17, which are reproduced below:

                   Whether the leases held by the mining lessees have expired-

                   15. According to the Justice Shah Commission Report, prior to 07.01.1993 sub-rule (4) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules provided that the renewal application of the lessee is required to be disposed of within six months from the date of its receipt and sub-rule (5) of Rule 24-A provided that if the application is not disposed of within stipulated time, the same shall be deemed to have been refused. The Justice Shah Commission has found that the applications of several mining leases for renewal were not disposed of a within the stipulated time and there condone the delay and, therefore, these leases are in contravention of the MC Rules to and are void and have no effect as provided in Section 19 of the MMDR Act.

                   16. CEC in its report has stated that under Section 4 of the Abolition Act, the concessions were abolished from 23-5-1987 and treated as deemed leases under the MMDR Act and the period of deemed leases under Section 5 of the Abolition Act was extended up to six months with effect from the date of assent to the Abolition Act (23-5-1987) is up to 22-11-1987. CEC has further stated that by Notifications dated 20-11-1987 and 20-5-1988, however, the Government of Goa allowed extension of six months each (totalling one year) for making applications for the first renewal of deemed mining leases and this one year period expired on 22- 11-1988. CEC has further stated that as per the information provided to CEC, out of 595 mining concessions abolished and converted into deemed mining leases under Section 4 of the Abolition Act, as many as 379 deemed mining lease-holders have filed applications for the first renewal of the mining leases before 22-11-d 1988 and 59 such lessees have filed applications for the first renewal of the deemed mining leases after 22-11-1988 Le beyond the time-limit permitted under Rule 24-A(8) of the MC Rules.

                   17. In reply, the learned counsel for the lessees and Mr Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Goa, submitted that sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules did not apply to the State of Goa. They submitted that sub-rules (8) and (9) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules apply specifically to the State of Goa and sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules provides that an application for the first renewal of the deemed mining lease referred to in Section 4 of the Abolition Act shall be made to the State Government in Form J before the period of six months of the mining lease as provided in Section 5(1) of the Abolition Act. They submitted that f the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules conferred power on the State Government to extend time for making such application up to a total period not extending one year. They submitted that, by two Notifications, the State Government extended time for a period of one year up to 22-11-1988 and within this period most of the lessees have applied for the first renewal of the deemed mining lease. The learned counsel for the lessees and the learned 9 counsel for the State of Goa submitted that sub-rule (9) of Rule 24 A of the MC Rules makes it clear that if an application for first renewal is made within the time referred to in sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules or within the time allowed by the State Government under the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules, the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes orders thereon.”

12. At this juncture we must take note that though the Petitioner was not specifically impleaded as party to the GF-I Petition, the Goa Mining Association was a party to the Petition and was heard along with several other lessees before the Supreme Court. This is recorded in paragraph 17 of the Judgment. The Judgment then considers the provisions of Rule 24- A of the MCR, the effect of the amendments, the provisions of Section 8 and 8A of the MMDR, and recorded its conclusions thereon, in the following manner:

                   “20. Sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules has been inserted by G.S.R 855(E), dated 14-10-1987 and this sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (6), an application for the first renewal of a deemed mining lease, referred to in Section 4 of the Abolition Act, shall be made to the State Government in Form J before the expiry of the six months period of deemed lease as provided in Section 5(1) of the Abolition Act. The proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules, however, empowers the State Government to extend the time for making such application up to a total period not extending one year. In exercise of these powers in the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules, the State Government of Goa has in fact, extended time for making applications for first renewal up to 23-11- 1988, by two Notifications dated 20-11-1987 and 20-5-1988.

                   21. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules, which was also inserted by GSR 855(E), dated 14-10-1987, reads as follows:

                   "In an application for first renewal made within the time referred to in sub-rule (8) or within the time allowed by the State Government under the proviso to sub-rule (8), the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a period of one year from the date of expiry of lease or date of receipt of application, whichever is later, provided that the period of deemed extension of lease shall end with the date of receipt of the orders of the State Government thereon, if such orders are made earlier"

                   Sub-rule (9) was substituted by G.SR 724(E) dated 27-9-1994 by the existing sub-rule (9) (extracted above at para 19) to provide that if an application for first renewal is made within the time referred to in subrule (8) or within the time allowed by the State Government under the proviso to sub-rule (8), the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes orders thereon. In our considered opinion, the intention of the rulemaking authorities is very clear from sub-rule (9) as was originally inserted by GSR 855(E), dated 14-10-1987 and sub-rule (9) as was substituted by GSR 724(B), dated 27-9-1994, that until orders were passed by the State Government on an application for first renewal of a lease filed by lessee within the time allow the lease was deemed to have been extended.

                   22.The lessees have contended that they had filed their applications by 22-11-1988 i.e the date up to which the State Government had allowed time under the proviso to sub-rule (8) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules. The State Government has also taken the stand that most of the applications for first renewal were filed within the time allowed by the State Government and this stand is also supported by the facts found by CEC The result is that most of the mining leases in which the State Government has pet passed orders are deemed to have been extended under sub-rule (9) of Rule 24-A of the. MC Rules Hence, the finding in the Justice Shah Commission Report that the applications for renewal were not disposed of within the stipulated time and the leases are in contravention of the MC Rules is, thus not correct This opinion of the Justice Shah Commission, as we have noticed, was based on sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules, which were applicable generally to an application for renewal of mining leases, stood excluded to the extent that specific provisions have been subsequently made by the rule-making authorities in sub-rules 65 and 19) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules in h respect of the deemed leases in Goa.

                   23. Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for Goa Foundation, however, submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act prior to its amendment provided that a mining lease may be renewed for only ten years a and, therefore, if the deemed mining leases of the lessees expired on 22-11-1987, even if the lease was renewed on the application of first renewal made by the lessees in Goa, the period of lease under the first renewal would expire on 21-11-1997 and after 21- 11 1997 there can be no deemed extension. Alternatively, he submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR-Act as amended by Act 25 of 1994 provided that the mining lease b may be renewed for a maximum period not exceeding twenty year. He submitted that as the deemed mining leases expired on 22-11-1987, he lessees would be entitled to a renewal for a maximum period of twenty years up to 21- 11-2007 and after 21-11-2007, the lessees would not be entitled to any renewal and hence the lessees were not entitled to operate the lease beyond 21-11-2007.

                   ..

                   ..

                   27. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, which provides the maximum and minimum periods for which a mining lease may be granted will not apply to deemed mining leases in Goa because subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Abolition Act provides that the period of such deemed mining leases will extend up to six months from the date of assent notwithstanding anything contained in the MMDR Act. In other words, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act, the period of a deemed mining lease in Goa was to expire on MMD 22-11-1987 (six months from the date of assent). Under sub-section (2) o Section 8 of the MMDR Act, a mining lease may be renewed for a period not exceeding twenty years. Subsection (3) of Section 8, however, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), if the State Government is of the opinion that in the interest of mineral development, it is necessary so to do, it may for reasons to be recorded, authorise the renewal of a mining lease in respect of minerals not specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule for a further period or periods not exceeding twenty years in each case Thus, renewal beyond the first renewal for a period of twenty years is conditional upon the State Government forming an opinion that in the interest of mineral development, it is necessary to do so and also conditional upon the State Government recording reasons for such renewal of La mining lease in respect of iron ore which is not specified in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule. In TISCO Ltd. v. Union of India 10, this Court has held b (at SCC p. 720, para 34) that the language of sub-section (3) of Section 8 is quite clear that ordinarily a lease is not to be granted beyond the time specified in sub-section (2) and only if the Government is of the view that it would be in the interest of mineral development, it is empowered to renew lease of a lessee for a further period after recording sound reasons for doing so. This Court has further held in the aforesaid case that this measure has c been incorporated in the legislative scheme as a safeguard against arbitrariness and the letter and spirit of the law must be adhered to in a strict manner.

                   28. The MC Rules have been made under Section 13 of the MMDR Act by the Central Government and obviously could not have been made in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 24 A of the MC Rules provides that:

                   24-A. (6) If an application for renewal of a mining lease made within the time referred to in sub-rule (1) is not disposed of by the State Government before the date of expiry of the lease, the period of that lease shall be deemed to have been extended by a further period till the State Government passes order thereon."

                   This sub-rule cannot apply to a renewal under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act because the renewal under this provision cannot be made without express orders of the State Government recording reasons for renewal in the interest of mineral development. In other words, so long as there is a right of renewal in the lessee which in the case of a mining lease is for a maximum period of twenty years, the provision regarding deemed! extension of a lease can operate, but if the right of renewal of a mining lease is dependent upon the State Government forming an opinion that in the interest of mineral development it is necessary to do so and the State Government recording reasons therefor, a provision regarding deemed extension till orders are passed by the State Government on the application of renewal cannot apply We are, therefore, of the opinion that sub-rule (6) of Rule 24 A of the MC Rules will apply to a case of first renewal under sub section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act other than a case covered under sub-rule (9) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules, but will not apply to renewal under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act our view, the deemed mining leases of the lessees in Goa expired on 22-11-1987 under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Abolition Act and the maximum of 20 years renewal period of the deemed mining leases in Goa as provided in a sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the MMDR Act read with sub-rules (8) and (9) of Rule 24-A of the MC Rules expired on 22-11-2007.”

13. On a reading of the findings of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned paragraphs, we conclude that the Supreme Court has not only dealt with a case where the application for first renewal was filed within time but was pending when the GF-I was passed, but has also dealt with, both, a situation where, whilst the application was pending, the lease is to have been deemed granted, if not decided within six months, but also cases that fell outside the deeming provision. If one reads the discussion in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court has considered all these situations, and in our opinion, it would make no difference if the mine was operated under the deeming provision or as in the case contended by the Petitioner, where the deemed rejection was challenged, and on a representation was ultimately granted by the Supreme Court, in the form of an in principle order extending the first renewal.

14. This becomes even more clear when one reads the contents of paragraphs 82 and 87 of the GF-I Judgment which are reproduced below:

                   “Whether suspension of mining operations in the State of Goa by Order dated 10-9-2012 of the Government of Goa and the suspension of the environmental clearances granted to the mines in the State of Goa by Order dated 14-9-2012 were legal and valid?

                   82. As we have held that the deemed mining leases of the lessees in Goa expired on 22-11-1987 and the maximum period (20 years) of renewal of the deemed mining leases in Goa has also expired on 22- 11-2007, mining by the lessees in Goa after 22-11-2007 was illegal Hence, the Order dated 10-9-2012 of the Government of Goa suspending mining operations in the State of Goa and the Order dated 14-9-2012 of MoEF, Government of India, suspending the environmental clearances granted to the mines in the State of Goa, which have been impugned in the writ petitions in the Bombay High Court, Goa Bench (transferred to this Court and registered as transferred cases) cannot be quashed by this Court. The Order dated 10-9-2012 of the Government of Goa and the Order dated 14-9-2012 of MoEF will have to continue till decisions are taken by the State Government to grant fresh leases and decisions are taken by MoEF to grant fresh environment clearances for mining projects.

                   ..

                   ..

                   87. In the result, we declare that:

                   87.1. The deemed mining leases of the lessees in Goa expired on 22-11-1987 and the maximum of 20 years renewal period of the deemed mining leases in Goa expired on 22-11-2007 and consequently mining by the lessees after 22-11-2007 was illegal and hence the impugned Order dated 10-9-2012 Government of Goa and the impugned Order dated 14-9-2012 of MoEF, Government of India are not liable to be quashed.”

15. Reading of these observations would lead us to conclude that once the Supreme Court has declared that all mining leases in Goa, whether expired on 22.11.1987 or on 22.11.2007, would be illegal and further that once the Order dated 10.09.2012 issued by the Government of Goa suspending all mining, and Order dated 14.09.2012 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest suspending all ECs granted, would also cover the case of the Petitioner.

                   This becomes even more clear when we read the observations of the Supreme Court in the GF-II Judgment which are reproduced below:

                   “57. There is no doubt that the renewal of a lease is virtually the same as the grant of a fresh lease but a converse direction to grant a mining lease cannot be understood to mean granting a renewal of a mining lease. Obviously, the grant of a fresh lease is not the same as the renewal of a lease and when the Court in Goa Foundation required the State of Goa to grant a fresh lease, it did not require the State to renew the existing (expired) lease. The Court could have explicitly declared and directed the State of Goa to grant a second renewal of the mining leases rather than to say it in a roundabout manner that it should do so by granting a fresh lease equivalent to a renewal. We simply cannot accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the mining leaseholders in this regard.”

The observations made by the Supreme Court in the above paragraphs wherein the Supreme Court has observed that the Court could have explicitly declared and directed the State of Goa to grant a second renewal of the mining lease rather than say that it should do so by granting a fresh lease, equivalent to a renewal.

16. In the present case, the Petitioner’s lease expired on 22.11.1987. It applied for a fresh lease/renewal on 22.11.1988 and in six months of the application, due to the deemed refusal fiction, it filed Revision Application which remanded the case back to the DMG who again rejected the renewal of the first lease which order came to be confirmed in Revision by the Ministry of Mines on 11.03.2002. The rejection had obviously attained finality. Almost two and half years later, the Petitioner filed a representation to the DMG on 07.12.2005 seeking reconsideration of its renewal application on grounds that the Petitioner had now paid all dues and obtained a Clearance Certificate, which was unpaid and not produced when the Petitioner first asked for renewal. This Court directed the State to consider the representation. On 11.07.2007, the DMG has recorded in the Order that the application for reconsideration is liable to be granted subject to clearance of EC. There was no lease executed thereafter in favour of the Petitioner even though it obtained the EC clearance on 02.03.2009. Till date, and even at the time the GF-I Judgment was rendered, no renewed lease was executed in favour of the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner has remained silent, after obtaining the Order dated 11.07.2007, (three months prior to the interim Order in GF-I), purportedly to renew its lease, till the year 2016 when this Petition was filed. There is no explanation in the Petition as to why the Petitioner has taken no steps to seek relief of a direction to the DMG to execute a lease deed in favour of the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner now seeks in terms of prayer clause (c) and (d) and order of first renewal and a declaration that the Petitioner’s mining lease stands extended till 31.03.2020 in terms of Section 8A of the MMDR. On this conduct alone, we are of the opinion that the Petition requires to be rejected.

17. We further take note of the fact that the Petitioner’s mining lease is covered by the Justice Shah Commission Report and by the two Orders dated 10.09.2012 and 14.09.2012, respectively of the Government of Goa and of the MoEF. This was obviously known to the Petitioners since the interim orders of the Supreme Court passed on 05.10.2012 in the GF-I Petition. Their intervention application, though refers to a different mine, refers to their name figuring in the Shah Commission Report and that they were not in favour of the suspension of mining activities. The application also submits with respect to their mine TC No.28/1952 that they had applied for renewal on a deemed extended lease, though the application for renewal was not granted. The extension sought in that mine was for first renewal. The Petitioner was therefore very clear in its mind that the GF-I Petition might affect even a case where the first renewal had not been granted and was pending and the lessee was operating the mine under the deeming provision. The intervention application also contains a relief clause (b) seeking a direction that the interim order passed by the Supreme Court on 05.10.2012 would not operate against the mining lease of the applicant TC No.28/1952, in which the first renewal application itself was pending.

18. The Petitioners were, in fact, heard by the Supreme Court as is recorded in the appearances, and though specific orders may not have been passed on their intervention application, since final judgment in GFI was rendered, the relief clause (b) in the application would be deemed to have been rejected. Thus, even in a case where the first renewal application was pending, i.e. commencing 22.11.1987 stood rejected. We also note that it is the Petitioner alone who has 27 other Writ Petitions which bear Writ Petitions No. 83, 61, 99, 96, 87, 78, 81, 62, 91, 67, 80, 69, 92, 77, 85, 79, 82, 70, 89, 90, 86, 68, 88, 98, 97 and Writ Petition No. 63 of 2017, pending before us on similar lines and we have recorded a statement of the learned Advocate General, on instructions from the DMG that no other Petitions on raising a similar case are before this Court. In these circumstances, the Petitioner, having been heard during hearing of the GF-I case, ought to have either sought review of the GF-I Judgment, if it felt its case was an exception, as it purported to have obtained an order of grant of first renewal on 11.07.2007. Even otherwise, it has not thrown any independent challenge to Orders dated 10.09.2012 and 14.09.2012 which were upheld by the Supreme Court in GF-I. In any event, we are of the considered opinion that the Judgment which was rendered by the Supreme Court in GF-I, covers even cases where orders to extend a lease may have been passed, but a lease agreement had not been executed.

19. For all the aforesaid reasons, we reject the Writ Petition. Rule stands discharged. There shall be costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid by the Petitioner No.1 to the Goa State Legal Services Authority.