PANAJI | May 14, 2017: With its applications for mining lease renewals awaiting clearance for 30 years, this mining company's wait to start business has been long.

Now, finally, in an order that will come as a relief to its mine owner, the high court of Bombay at Goa has directed the Union ministry of mines to decide on its renewal applications.

Vishal Vinayak Bandekar, the petitioner, had applied for the renewal on November 22, 1988, which was rejected by the state government on January 16, 1990, on the ground that the application was not accompanied by an approved mining plan.

The petitioner then filed revision applications before the central government, which was rejected by an order, dated January 29, 1998, on the same grounds.

It was contended before the HC that the requirement to submit approved mining plan along with the lease renewal application was no longer applicable following the omission of Rule 22(3) (e) of MCR, 1960, from the rule book with effect from September 27, 1994.

The petitioner had applied for the renewal a second time, on September 17, 2007, which the state government, by an order dated February 09, 2010, rejected once again, mainly because the first renewal application was rejected.

The petitioner filed revision petitions before the central government, which came to be dismissed by an order dated, October 21, 2010.

In his order Justice M S Sonak has observed that while the petitioner has raised several points in support of his company's mining lease being renewed, it appeared that the revisional authority had neither reffered nor considered the same.

The high court order further stated that the impugned orders, made by the central government, virtually repeated the reasons stated by the state government for rejection of the renewal applications.

"Minimum that was expected by the revisional authority was to at least consider such contentions raised by the petitioner while disposing of the revision applications," Sonak observed.

S G Dessai, senior advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned orders made by the central government are liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the central government for fresh consideration of revision applications of the petitioner's, in accordance with law.

(Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/)