Bombay High Court
Vishal Vinayak Bandekar vs The Revisional Authority And 2 Ors on 4 April, 2025
2025:BHC-GOA:663
2025:BHC-GOA:663 (11) WP 444 of 2023
Sonam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 444 OF 2023
Vishal Vinayak Bandekar,
Son of late Shri. Vinayak Bandekar,
Aged 54 years, married, Indian National,
Sole Proprietor of M/s V. N. Bandekar,
Having office at CA-I/II, Sapna Gardens,
Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Revisional Authority
(Central Government), under
The Mines & Mineral
(Development & Regulation) Act, 1957,
Government of India,
Ministry of Mines, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110011.
2. State of Goa
Through its Secretary (Mines)
Having office at Secretariat
Porvorim, Bardez, Goa.
3. Union of India
Through the Ministry of Mines
Having office at Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi. ...Respondents
Mr. Kabir Sabnis, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Page 1 of 4
4th April, 2025
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 07:12:07 :::
(11) WP 444 of 2023
Mr. Anand Shirodkar, Advocate holding for Mr. Somnath
Karpe, Central Government Standing Counsel for the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
Mr. Neehal Vernekar, Additional Government Advocate for
Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED : 4TH APRIL, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith; at the request of
and with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties, the
matter is finally heard and disposed of. Learned Advocate Mr.
Kabir Sabnis waives service on behalf of Petitioner, learned
Advocate Mr. Anand Shirodkar holding for Mr. Somnath
Karpe, learned Central Government Standing Counsel waives
service for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. Neehal
Vernekar, learned Additional Government Advocate waives
service for Respondent No. 2.
3. This petition is disposed of after hearing the parties and
with their consent. An order dated 30.01.2018 came to be
passed by the Revisional Authority i.e. Joint Secretary
Department of Mines and Minerals under Section 30 of the
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act, 1957
4th April, 2025
(11) WP 444 of 2023
(MMDR Act) and Rule 36 of the Minerals (other than Atomic
& Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules,
2016(MCR, 2016). By this order, the Revisional Authority
under the above said Act, at paragraph No. 11.1 to 11.4 has
considered that the State Government has not entertained only
merits of the application and has rejected the same merely for
not filing the approved Mining plan. While rejecting the
contention of the department, holding that under the 2016
Rules, such a plan was made mandatory, it has remanded the
application for renewal of the lease back to the State
Government for reconsideration on merits.
4. The original authority i.e. Secretary Mines and Minerals
of the State Government, instead of considering the application
for the grant of renewal of lease on its merits, in terms of the
remand order, holds that the revisional order has nowhere set
aside the order dated 09.02.2010, passed on the original
application for renewal of the lease. Accordingly, the Secretary
of the Mines Department of the State rejected the application
for renewal, on this ground alone by impugned order dated
03.03.2020, against which the revision was preferred, which
was also dismissed on 22.10.2021 by the second impugned
order. Both these orders were decided on the wrong premise
that the original order dated 09.02.2010 on the first ground of
the consideration of the application for renewal of the lease has
4th April, 2025
(11) WP 444 of 2023
never being set aside. On a plain reading of the order of the
Revisional Authority dated 30.01.2018, it has in no uncertain
terms held that the application could not have been rejected for
the reasons stated in the impugned order dated 09.10.2010; it
has specifically held so at paragraph Nos. 11.1 to 11.4 of the
order. Thus, it is clear that the order dated 09.02.2010 was set
aside by the said authority, and the case was remanded back in
terms of paragraph No. 13 of the order of the State Government
for re-examining and taking a decision on its merits.
5. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 03.03.2020
passed by the Secretary Mines and order dated 22.10.2021
passed by the Joint Secretary and Revisional Authority are
quashed and set aside. Consequently, the application for
renewal of the lease dated 17.09.2007 in respect of TC No.
108/1953 shall be heard on its own merits and decided afresh
by the Secretary Mines, Government of Goa, in terms of the
aforesaid Act and Rules within a period of 3 months from
receipt of this order.
6. Rule is made absolute in the aforementioned terms.
7. The petition stands disposed of.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
4th April, 2025
