Panaji: The Bombay high court has dismissed a review plea filed by Goa Foundation against its May 7 order on Goa’s mining dump policy.The policy allows iron ore from mining dumps to be returned to former leaseholders without auction.In its May 7 order, the high court had dismissed Goa Foundation’s PIL challenging the policy. The court had said that the dumps were created during mining under approved leases, and that the leaseholders had already paid royalty on the iron ore. It also said Goa Foundation’s demand for a fresh auction process for the dumps was not reasonable.Goa Foundation said that Goa govt is legally required to hold public auctions for removing iron ore from dumps. It said Clause 2(2) of the dumping policy does not provide for auctions, which could cause loss to the public exchequer.After the May 7 order, Goa Foundation approached the high court again, asking it to review and recall the judgment and hear the case afresh.Senior advocate Norma Alvares, appearing for Goa Foundation, said that no one had claimed that royalty had already been paid on the iron ore in the dumps. She said state govt’s stand is that the leaseholder will have to pay royalty when removing the ore from the dumps. She said the court’s observation was wrong.Senior advocates S D Lotlikar, appearing for Chowgule & Co Pvt Ltd (mining division), and S S Kantak, appearing for Goa Mineral Ore Exporters’ Association, said that the court’s statement was only an observation made while dealing with Goa Foundation’s claim of loss to the state. They said it was not a factual finding and did not amount to an error.Justices Suman Shyam and Amit Jamsandekar said the court’s view that auctions were not required for mining dumps was based on several aspects of the case. They said even if the disputed paragraph was removed, it would not change the result of the petition.The high court said it found no clear error in the record that required correction through review.“If Goa Foundation’s submission is accepted, that could at best amount to an error in the judgment rendered by this court, which can only be corrected by a superior forum, in an appeal,” the court said.The court said the power to review an order is very limited. It said review is allowed only when there is a clear mistake or error on the face of the record.The court also said that recalling the order would mean hearing the original petition again. It said this cannot be done unless there is a clear error that has a direct effect on the outcome of the case.
