Panaji: Bombay high court at Goa on Monday rejected a review petition of a mining company to operate its leases based on a first renewal granted to operate the mining leases during the period 1987 to 2007 for a period of 20 years. The mining company argued that the company had never operated the leases during that period.While disposing of the matter, the high court imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner, which shall deposit these costs in a fund to be created by Goa high court bar association to be titled ‘legal training/education fund’.During the hearing, Advocate General Devidas Pangam said that the petitioner has withdrawn the SLP filed in Supreme Court against the judgment of May 8, 2026, which is under review. He further submitted that no specific leave was granted to the petitioner to approach this court in review.Pangam further made a submission that the mining lease lot no 18, which was the subject matter of the writ petition, has now been allotted in an e-auction to Dharati Dredging under the letter of intent dated July 3.Pangam said that the first instalment towards this allotment of the mine has been made along with the security deposits required to be made pursuant to the letter of intent.Counsel for the review petitioner said that the petitioner’s case was one where the application for first renewal was pending, whilst Goa Foundation-1 judgment in the illegal mining case proceeded on the assumption that all the mining leases which were covered by the judgment were those where the first renewal application had been granted and mining leases had been executed and were operating.Counsel for the review petitioner claimed that the petitioner fell within the exception to the leases covered by Goa Foundation-1 judgment.“After considering these submissions, we reject the review application on this ground, for the following reasons. We have perused the judgment under review and note that this court has arrived at its conclusion after considering the observations in the Goa Foundation-1 judgment. The conclusion arrived at was after analysing the observations made in the judgment, which were later referred to in the Goa Foundation-2 judgment, which have also been noted by us. This court has therefore gone through a detailed exercise of interpreting the judgment, and this by itself would not be an error apparent on the face of the record, giving rise to a ground for review,” stated the division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit S Jamsandekar.
