3h From pre-page r NOTE Late Shri Vaikunt Kadnekar was a holder of an erstwhile concession for iron and manganese ore covering of an area of 31.16 Ha, situated at Maina of Quepem taluka. Pursuant to the enactment of Abolition Act 1987 the above concession was abolished and declared as mining lease under the MMDR Act 1957, (98/«) 2. On 30/10/2000 Shri Ajit Vaikunt Kadnekar one of the legal applicd for renewal of mining lease for further period. The said applicatio was accompanied by the following documents:- 1. Onder dated 30/3/2000 from CML.(3i/c ~ 2 2. Affidavit dated 17/8/2000 regarding incy Se ABGE A. (SAGE eres i 9/ 10/2000.(29 fe) Challan No 998/R/2000 da 10pe for Sco) -(28/¢) 5. Copy of title of concession, 6. Copy of concession’ (2 a se MV. mre jin) . 66 dated 19/11/87 for Rs. 500/-.(18/c) PP) mm in J form dated 19/11/87.(1S/e - 17 fe) a made to the High Court in Writ Petition No. rights.(9/c-10/c) 14. Civil registration certificate of Marriage. (8/<) 15, Copy of translation of the Court onder. (4/@ - 7/¢) 16. Copy of Court order in Portuguese language, (1/¢-3/c) years. It was also brought to the notice of the State Government that it the past the delay in submission of application in J form was condoned by the State Government in some sascs and that in the event the present application is to be rejected, a personal hearing would be required wo erected Wenn meets osapplication dated 30/10/2000 is to he considered favourably, the Oe Government would have to be moved to reine the Provisions in tez Section 31 of the Act 57, (40/c). It appears that no decision was t the matter as there is no correspondence in the file. 4 We have now received a letter dated 12.9.06 from Ajit Shri Kads informing that upon the demise of Shri Vaikunt Kadnekar, his by Shri $.V. Kednekar was looking after the affnirs and thnt before the of time to submit application for renewal in terms of the Concession Rules, Shri Shivanand Vaikunt Kadnekar had paid an Of Rs. 500/- vide Challan No. 66 dated 19/11/1987, Form J duly signed by him on 19/11/1987 for subshis has also been stated that Shri Shivanand V; sowéhiine in October 2000, Ht for TS time i A i for it time it was realized © 0 this office. Government was authorized to condone the delay in subm Form. This was subsequently followed by another amendment whereby the power of the State Government to condone the d restricted only in respect of the application submitted before thee the tease. 6. — Recently in one case involving the renewal application fi Antonio David D'Souza beyond the time limit as prescribed under () of MCR 1960, a decision was taken by the Government to coms delay taking into account that the party had paid the Chall carlicr than the date on which the mining lease was due to expi In the present case it is seen that the application in Form J other documents including the challan Ne. 66 dated 19/ 11/3Shes State Bank of India, Margao, as available in the file are only Xerox copies which have been certified to be true copies by a Notary. If these ~ documents are taken into account there is prima facie an indication that the party had intention to apply for renewal of mining lease within the stipulated period as the party had effected the payment as well as executed the affidavits well within the time limit prescribed under Rule 24 A (1) of MCR 1960. In_view of above and considering the decision taken in the case of Shri Antonio David D'Souza, the proposal of Shri Ajit Kadnckar for condonation of delay of the application is submitted for consideration and dccision of Government. "| lke Part : jdyessed 10 4 In view 4 go dotuments a5 uy informing him te ie dibyed the 0-06 Government bes -candoned appvcnion Aide) Poweja Note Jettey 31\!9] 2006, CaF awe) (es dotumen ts inelucling qyalid cleerance Corti pard Suvfece vent and cleed sank prom r patd Tes on pa Miele geo was requested to submit odber subsequently party en oalgligay till si}03] 2006 an also amount, CaF ugic te s\\O in vesPeet + qt no. 12)55) ee duane ang. 7" dues im yespect Of spe Nos 12/55 % period qajos}1987 te i108 206, TRE Qiments- S (gull) col Pre ate dated 4 fe Lett Gack ncer™ (mil pat sp de cisuin fransiderohos 7 Tainig tor We ford 2 ends Govt for te offit, ater compliag tah a form ake he aa 9g (NCR 190 — thers. cobeR Mb We Riteae wer * a pdiMte Oe ties 3/69/a7-miNEs Government ef Goa, weno nalse Mines Department, Becrstariee anase, EDC Howse, Panaji-, a Sit iit ae f ae) 24 pee Wat | The Directet-'ef) Indager ine’ &- Panaji. | tt Te | 4 | ee f ere] | ; tl : : 1 | ‘gubs ‘Conabnatibnles doldy in fiildng applic , bP eames RSS, Fd, acne i : rea Set ee { Madan, 1 Ie Ft 7 nt has Wureadyte! tondpne PP) etlien 4 ha jal” t pete i i a 1prewal application ah Wfiefer pecseed Four Daas PR. Garner om awpect fhe lease mo e/se atfaeliod ok Bake sdadicke adeng th otir documenle Baty be keen piste at page fe te fe eoutd be Attn Pony hubmsrndn "Gl fener We in preperation 4 eppacv ek withsn tha Heme lew sap /ee. this wigan, Tk stg ple liel KO Rubreteston foam fo mt Put pated oe iF en fa |f cecil Caeedannalis g ey ta. Khali Govt, wt om grufebte|| decreters Ot ence bod 9/7/97 that the Catt} dhe elles g tack He), minting Gare | wed 2afn ee. of calions ca adeepted , at the % 1 4 : we powe & | comclonm oF He Gnlnek” Gat tos Ay sol “| condons the gh i “Lakheteveh é ott) 2,7. “y amendinesd® mae thet to |Tren oars RE eae Bsa ek Se 5 Fie Govt vide ate th asfefar kat gf ty |e alg Im tubing Re Aenea rt ‘in foam Peele We may F pele te Hp gL abo oe neous “do cume Z re New kbig tela. sealers ag i i cA 1180, apple belly a dajee ys! Feo pO wa audewake &) gs 427 iter 4 Note ie Doc Wage Letter received from M/s. Damodar Mangalji & Co. Ltd placed aside Kindly be seen, It is requested to delete the Mn from FeMa originally sid. However it is mentioned that the application fir renewal of mining ‘was made only on 12.4.99 instead of applying before 21.11.1987 ad is being rejected as time barred ( 67/c). As such it appears thet no aotion seems to be required at this stage on ‘of the applicant placed aside at ( 68/c) in connection with deletionNote Letter dated 14.7.2004' ‘received from Under Sesy (Mines) enclosing therein a copy of the final order passed by the Revisional Authority may kindly be seen at pg. 101/o to 105/c. . The facts of the case are as under : ‘Mis, Damodar-Mangolji & Co. Ltd: were holders of an erstwhile mining concession for iran and manganese ore granteth nnder T.C:No 42/53 covering an area of 69.4335 Ha. of land si Collem of Sangvem taluka. Pursuant to the enactment 0 Abolifién Act 1987 “stg aforesaid concession wats ubtislied under MMDR Act 1957 and the rules ee m\VS7 the period of ofp ‘months and as such cro ier the Abolition Act 87 7.9.94 the Contrai Govt, inserted # new provision empowering the Stato Govt. to condone the delay after the time limit prescribed in sub- rule | ‘Mis. Damodar Mangalji & Co. Ltd by an application dt. 12.4.9 filed a J Form in respect 0 of the aforesaid mining lease, By « letter dt. |4:8.02 the applicants were called upon ta furnish the reasons tor delay in submitting the J form. However subsoquently by an communicated dated 26.11.2001 the application was rejected by the then DIM as being time barred, Aggrieved by the said communication, the party filed. revision application before the Central Govt. which by its ord er dt, 22.6.2004 Golde the order of rejection and remanded ‘back to the Stato Govt.QO = tection to affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the light of the suid order of Une Revisional Authority the case iy ared to be disposed of. On going through the sequence of events ents on record, the following position emerges: n needs to be wken as to whether the delay on the part of the fo submit the J form is to be condoned or not. delay for condonation is to be rejected, a personal hearisg will granted by the Govt. before rejecting the application F the delay is condoned by the Govt, the party Will-have 10 & the formalities of rule 22 for which the followi ingadoctiaen Ssebmitled und 4 notice to this effect will have ww ef MCR 1960 for which DM is competent. Approved mining plan Valid clearance certificate Be issued unifer q ‘ ae. ‘We milVereler the case to the Govt, for anddccidion off théguestion of condonation of delay, 5 yeoaksin ; €S. Revankar ) = Technical Assistant case of renewal of mining lease for further Y | juant fo the enactment of Abolition Act 1987. ation for renewal of mining lease was filed after “Sout 11 years, The reasons for submitting theapplication for renewal was filed or whether the law as * stands at the time of disposal is to be considered, In this connection it may be stated that in a re application involving Smt. Manikbai Pai Vernekar, Revisional Authority has held that the decision of Government to consider the law applicable at the time disposal was not correct and the law that was appli when the application was filed had to be cor Court in W.P.Ne.449/92 whercin provisions of law has been discus: ent namely (i) To % time barred after givi * hearing (2) To condone the oe gc te the Government, ax Uhe merils on Lae question of conden ere concerned, it may be stated that the rmment in the past had condoned delay in 27 thie particular case it ia relevant to mention thaf) Damodar Mangalji & Co. are well established owners/exporters who could have applied for re mining leasa in,.fime. ta, fant, the nearly, had, a renewal of fourteen mining leases in 1987/88 pr the enactment of Abolition Act 1987. A list of the leases presenlly held by the party is placed perusal. (I12/c} No prejudice is likely to be caused if the condoned. On thé contrary, the Government© towards dead rent/surlace rent for the period cing from 22/11/1987 if the delay is condoned. is algo similar to that of Smt. Verneker, which hae referred to the Government for decision. However in Setant case M/s. Damodar Mangalji & Co. have twelve feases under their operational control at present. A will therefore have to be taken by the Government question of condonation_of delay by taking into the fact that the party already holds twelve mining with the exclusion of the present ease. viow of above we may refer this car@ for ion and decision of the Government. { ee peice 2K * (atta te tetiflmat) 4 3 noe eam ee ssistant as ebevt, ohn @ Key eo . on At Bahk 4 aude ff " feta3h epee ge ye 2 49 fadercam Bowe 2) NOT Late SI RS. Barneto was a holder of an erstwhile mining concession under T.C. No. 25/52 of for FeMn over an area of 49.12 Ha. of land situsted in village Rivona of Buanjgucts tidukat, The sid convession was abolished and declared as mining lease pursuant to the enactment of Abolition Act 1987. On 30" December 2003, an application was received trom Smt, P, Barmeto signed by Shri, Dinar Tarear drawing the attention of this office to her application dated 18/10/1996 in J Form. A copy of the said application may kindly be seen at page $7/c, In this connection, the noting at page 1/N may Li it was stated that there was no proof of the party application on 18/10/1996 as contended. Accor Prekad to submit documentary evidence of havi the,form J on 18/10/1996, In response thereof hav enon the power of attorney holder that tit liam ed ougt Hersonally to Shri, P.A. Fernandes the ye €:). AP 16/10/1907 and that em the J Form, he did not obtain al ty, page is pla ic for perusal ) at(79/c). Similarly at Sr, No. 16 of another “register of late applications” the name of Smt, Patricia Barneto has also been seen wherein application dated 21/11/1997 is found to have been submitted. (Xerox copy of the page indivating tho entry shows the application is dated 21/11/1997 and subsequently a letter was received trom the party on 30/07/1998 justifying the delay (at 80/e)). The file was put up for condonation on 12/08/1998, However the records of movement of the file aro not available. From these documents and the above facts, it appears that an application for renewal of mining Iease in J Form was submitted by the applicant in 1997,‘As such there seems to be no ‘objection to process this case further aller reconstructing the filo, If agreed weimay process this case towards disposal Paver (R. Shefgavkar ) Technical Assistant pea ‘There are two issties involved in this case. The first issue is that there appears 4 te conflicting dates of the\application fot renewal of mining lease. The application in of the application, which shows that one Shri Patricia Barnetto mining lease on 21.11.97 (pg-8@/C). 1 is not clear ‘which isreflested on the register is the date of Pai xfeSecipt oft to the party justify the delay ond 1 ‘itor wan pat op Toe Gang ing lease is to be treated mea, the application has been filed after the ¢ Fent as on 21.11.88 the present application is sime ) reject the said application as being time harred on x 1 Ifthe application isto be rejected, it will have to be preceded by ~ personal hearing as required under rule 26(1) of MCR 1960, Alternatively, if the Si decision will have to be taken either as a matter Govt. desites to condone the delay, policy or on merits of the case. In this connection it niay be stated that the State Covi, in the past has eondas javolving a delay of even 7 years afer delay in submission of J form in 27 cases i In the present case, it is seen that the original concess expiry of the lease period. holder had expired on 13.06.77 ( $2/e. It's common knowledge that establishing rights of inheritanceysuccessioti is time consuming and normally persons are notSe) sit Eu) with the formalities and the procedures invalved. Besides, it is also a fact the enactment of Abolition Act 1987 about 400 mining Jeases had fallen duc ‘at one point of time creating difficulty to get the services of surveyors and qualified persons (viz geologist or mining engincers) for preparation of me in 1987-88, the provisions of law did not ‘Furthermore at the relevant power an the Stute Govt, to consider applications received after a period of Som-the date of expiry of lense even if there were compelling reasons to apply of mining teas. It was only in 1994, that a new provision was inserted by _ seiudment to MCR 1960 empowering the State Govt. w condone the delay _ the State Govt. condoned the delay in 27 eases as seen from the statement Fe However subsequently by an amendment dt. 17.1.00 the provision of of delay was amended to restrict the power ofthe State only in those cas ‘epplication for renewal of m Gs selevant to mention that recently the State Govt. has eoffaned the dein IPF application mining lease for renewal of Smt. Mgt Apel Vege bye to the provisions of law as was appligable Miihe Me wate for renewal of mining lease was filedy69 /c). In (lithprescpPtase, ifbither of ‘the application namely 18/10/96%y 21.1 SESE cg the State at 10 condone {pdelay 1 dogAEABno pS» view o@Movision of law pduring 1996-97 gunioo7 MR p" Ko Gpadthas Hades. seeasid hyo wxQht beMGiit of Wabbit the opplicant und accept the application = having beg subytf@pp 21.11.97 us per our available records, = agi had to bBlaken £47 conconation of delay ifthe State Govt. agrees to ation dit. | 10.98 —e Senior Technical Assistant uz) eet: Pubrap ta Gin Kae aforesaid a exeing the power the afore: » ' o 2 por a governm Re agate not after the expiry 6 ©) cular cuse the application for renewal of mining cr 0 lapse of 10 years. Obviously in the light of the} sion Authority and the provisions of Rule 24 A (10) as 7 the State Government will have to consider as to whethe ‘or not to condone the delay. In thig case, applicant vide letters dated 05/08/1998 (at 16) 23/07/2004 (at 140/C), were: requested to justify the delay in subs renewal application after a gap of 11 years. In response fo this, atl applicant submitted that, he could not get the assistance of quali! for preparing mining plan as mining plans were to be comple period (153/C). It is seen from the available records that the State Goverm past had condoned the delay in several cases a list of which is pl re yeiected (14@/O) ‘There are gome more anolications which wesicw of order of Revisional Authority these cages are also 10 be . ish to the Government for condonation of delay (at 45/C), Serced, we may refer the matter for consideration and decision of the t. wa 03] CR. Shetgavkgr ) application filed by the appl that it was time’ i oofisidertig ip” lax ‘at the time of diaugsa! (17/0). The Reviainnal nueSiStity however side the said and romurided thagease back to the State with ge di ioAGragy the“kPplicant an opportunity of hearing fanie pass offSty, Srmammttits 141/, The Revisional has 4 obprved yihat “Wmgpdment of Rule 24A(10) was ce 17/200 wlecreashite application for renewal of mining 1 gi. 780 ORM rio NE the date of amendment and as such tect coulis given, In otier words it appears that the be eonsiifered in the light of the law as stood elie day whip the application for renewal was filed and not ps it wt appligGbie wl the time of disposal. This position has also Fe Tloa'ble High Court in WP No.#49/92 (22916). ‘by Secretary (Mines)in his order dated Se light of the above directions, the following issues arise for The application was fled on 17/06/98 i.c. after a lapse of Hyears from the date of expiry of the deemed mining lease fo the enactment of Abolition Act 1987. It is open to the MGovt. cither to reject the said application as being time barred or 2 the delay, If the application isto bo rojoctod, vill have to: by a personal bearing as required rule 26(1) of 7960, Alternatively, if the State Govi. desires to condone the a decision will have to be taken either as a matter of policy or of the case.ii) In this connection, aS pointed out in the preceding 2a State Govt. had condoned delay of submission of J form in 23 involving a delay. of even 7 years after the expiry of the lease In the present case, it 1s seem that the original concession BO expired and the application was filed by the wile of the common knowledge that sstablishing the rig inheritance/succession if time consuming and normally the we net well conversant with the formalities and the prose involved. Besides, it is also 8 fact that with the enactment ‘about 400 mining leases had fallen due for renewal at ome time creating difficulty to get the services of surveyors and qualified persons (viz. geologist oF mining engineers) for pre of mining pl (iii) Furthermore at the relevant time in 1987, the prow jaw did not confer any power on the Stale Govt. applications received after a period of one year Tok the date of lease even if there wore compelling reas’ » kyapply for re mining lease. It was only in 1994 that a newd@rovagion wae by way of an amendment empowering the, State GGyt_ ip com delay due (v which the Slate Govl. conde delay W927 cas from the statement at 138/c Howevggtiaybseguen apes dated 17/1/2000 the provision of donde riot dele vas a to restrict the power of the Sige Ghly i thaappliceffen for mining, lease filed befofeyehe Tot Ignge period. present case will, have toMy cis indicated at “70H 1x oss > -ypet@emettion here ts Abolition Act is the Fibh"b) oreme Court Which has a5 to the’ a) jpellants permit ih the terms and conditions. cao, it in felt that no prejediee is likely te T the applicants for condonation of delay is @ ‘the ovement as done in jgifion to ronlise the revenuo, towards 2 {71/11/1987 onwards, if such a request r hove, we may rofer the proposal of the appl In view of al ‘ration and decision of the Govt ~ condonation of delay for considet Senior Technical A pare Snes soc mony Send We Prop Par wp sialense Note ax (25202, ™7 | Nee - 5 scimines) placed gee conver drat gjate Govt hes pprication 4 4 -reugemeintg ea Ry Cute’ TA te none THY L geen, whevel? party od Produ tt rent eee Ne S pavty jous“) documents ry 4 les* plan (2651 4 lease Plan guperimfesed OP codes coy Pl yp Casale? 26310 (26ugLetter dated 15,7.2004 received from Under Sccy (Mines enclosing therein a copy of the tinal order passed by the Revisional ‘Authority may kindly be seen at pg. 37/c to 42/c, The facts of the suse ure as under + M/s. Sociedade Timblo Irmaos Ltd represented by M/s. Sociedade de Fomento Indl. were holders of an erstwhile mining concession for iron ore granted under T.C.No. 88/53 coveridg an area of 53.375 Um. of land situated at Colomba of Sanguem taluka. Pursuant to the end ofthe Abulition Avt 1987 the afuresiid canessiion was abo rod as a mining lease under MMDR Act 1957 and the m ra By virlue of provisions contained in Section 5 ofithe Abolition Ag? the period of mining lease was extended by, ae months and as such all the erstwhilevmining of covgred under the Abolition Act 87 expired on'21.11 7 ‘Mis! Sociedade ‘limblo Irmaos Lid represented by M/s. Sociedade de Fomento Indi.Ltd by an application dt. 20.11.97 filed a J Form in respect of the aforesaid mining lease. Hy a letter df, 5.8,98 the applicants wore called upon to furnish the reasons for delay in submitting the J form. However subsequently by an communicated dated 7.3.2001 the application was rejected by the then DIM as being time barred, Aggrieved by the said communication, the party filed revision application before the Contral Govt which by its omer dt, 2,6.2004 set aside the order of reiection and remanded the case ie to the State Govt. with aa uy nto affording an opportunity of hearing tg the Peatienry and pass vupriale order in aeoordanice with law. In the light of the suid order of the Revisionul Aulhorily the cuse is sequired to be disposed of. On going through the sequence of events ‘She documents on record, the following position emerges: “A.desision neods ta be taken as to whether the delay on the part of the to submit the J form is to be condoned or not. Bike delay for condonation is to be rejected, a personal hearing will te be granted by the Govt. before rejecting the application Tn case the delay is condoned by the Govt. she party will haWto ) y with the formalities of rule 22 for which the followii Yocument™ Be Satin und u notice vo thi allot wil haveghbe isiantpleder Or 25(3) of MCR 1960 for which DM is compotgat. { we 2) Approved mining plan Y 5) Valid clearance certiticats ta view of abo ition ne y| rofchy the ees the Govt. for sed estioush! condonation af delay. tan Pit (8. Revankar ) Technical Assistant caa@ ot tenewal of mining lease for further period » the enactment of Abolition Act 1987, The ion for renewal of mining lease was filed after agap of Sears. The reasons indicated are that the mine in question dow grade silicious iron ore which had no market in 1987 the conditions improved only later on.