Bombay High Court
SHANTILAL KHUSHALDAS AND BROTHERS PVT. LTD. THR ITS AUTH REPRESENTATIVE SHIVAPPA DYAMAPPA CHAWANversusSTATE OF GOA THR ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The review petition is dismissed as there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the filing is an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioner, Shantilal Khushaldas & Brothers Pvt. Ltd., filed a review application challenging a High Court judgment dated 08.05.2026 that dismissed its writ petition concerning a mining lease. The petitioner argued that the judgment erroneously applied the Goa Foundation-1 decision to its case, which involved a pending first renewal application, and claimed the Supreme Court had permitted it to withdraw its Special Leave Petition and approach the High Court. The Court examined the alleged factual error, noted that the judgment had considered the relevant observations from Goa Foundation-1 and Goa Foundation-2 and was based on multiple grounds, including the petitioner’s conduct and lack of a valid mining agreement. Finding no error apparent on the face of the record and deeming the review an abuse of process, the Court dismissed the review application and imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000 to be deposited in a legal training fund, also directing the petitioner to pay previously ordered costs of Rs.5,00,000. The review petition and the accompanying miscellaneous application were consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court’s judgment is reviewable in the absence of specific leave granted by the Supreme Court after withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition.
- Whether the judgment erred by assuming the applicability of the Goa Foundation-1 decision to the petitioner’s pending renewal case.
- Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review.
- Whether filing the review petition constitutes an abuse of the Court’s process.
- Whether costs should be imposed on the petitioner for the dismissed review and earlier judgment.
Subjects
- review petition
- error apparent on the face of the record
- abuse of process
- mining lease
- Special Leave Petition
- Article 226
- costs
- Goa High Court
Judgment
5-CAREV-18-26.DOC
Suchitra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.18/2026
WITH
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.330/2026
IN
CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.18/2026
SHANTILAL KHUSHALDAS AND
BROTHERS PVT. LTD. THR AUTH
REPRESENTATIVE SHIVAPPA … REVIEW
DYAMAPPA CHAWAN PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF GOA THR ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS
Mr Rony Ommen John, Mr Vibhav Amonkar, Mr Raj Chodankar,
Ms Sonam Desai, Ms Maria Mashelkar, Ms Avantika Mehndiratta
(thr VC) and Mr Piyush Swami (thr VC), Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Mr D. Pangam, Advocate General with Mr P. Arolkar, Additional
Government Advocate for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
DATED: 28th SEPTEMBER 2026
ORDER :
1. Delay in iling the Review Application stands condoned.
Registry to waive oice objections and register the matter.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Page 1 of 6
28th September 2026
5-CAREV-18-26.DOC
3. On instructions, the Advocate for the Review Petitioner
submits that he withdraws all other grounds raised in this Review
Application but presses for ground no.I (a, b, c and d) of the
Petition. He submits that the Review Application shall be
restricted to pressing the aforementioned ground no.I (a, b, c and
d).
4. At the outset, the learned Advocate General brings to our
notice that the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.21933/2026
records that the Petitioner has withdrawn the Special Leave
Petition against the Judgment dated 08.05.2026 (which is under
review). He further submits that no speciic leave was granted to
the Petitioner to approach this Court in review.
From a reading of paragraph 1 of the order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 19.06.2026, we note that the order records
that the Petitioner seeks, and is permitted to withdraw the
Special Leave Petition as he wants to ile a review petition before
the High Court. here is no speciic leave granted to the
Petitioner to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with leave to
approach this Court in a review petition. We also note that
paragraph 2 of the order of the Supreme Court records that the
Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
5. Learned Advocate General, on instructions, has further
made a submission that the Mining Lease Lot No.18 which was
subject matter of the Writ Petition, has now been allotted on e-
auction to Dharati Dredging under the Letter of Intent dated
03.07.2026; he further submits that the irst instalment towards
Page 2 of 6
28th September 2026
5-CAREV-18-26.DOC
this allotment of the mine has been made along with the security
deposits required to be made pursuant to the Letter of Intent.
6. Be that as it may, we proceed to deal with the submissions
of the learned counsel as raised in ground no. I (a, b, c and d).
7. Learned counsel for the Review Petitioner submits that the
Judgment under review is premised on the assumption that Goa
Foundation-1 judgment covered cases which are that of the
Petitioner. He submits that the Petitioner’s case was one where
the application for irst renewal was pending, whilst the Goa
Foundation-1 judgment proceeded on the assumption that all the
mining leases which were covered by the judgment were those
where the irst renewal application had been granted and mining
leases had been executed and were operating. He claims that the
Petitioner fell in the exception to the leases covered by Goa
Foundation-1 judgment. He has taken us through paragraphs 21
to 24 and 27.1 of the Goa Foundation-1 judgment to submit that
the Goa Foundation-1 judgment never covered a case similar to
that of the Petitioner, and that this Court, on the erroneous
factual assumption that it did, proceeded to render its judgment.
8. After considering these submissions, we reject the review
application on this ground, for the following reasons.
9. We have perused the judgment under review, and note that
in paragraphs 13 to 15, this Court has arrived at its conclusion
after considering the observations in the Goa Foundation-1
judgment speciically quoted in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the
Page 3 of 6
28th September 2026
5-CAREV-18-26.DOC
judgment. he 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 in paragraph 15 of the judgment under review. his 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.
10. We also take note of the fact that the Writ Petition was
dismissed not only on the ground that the application for irst
renewal was pending before the Directorate of Mines and
Geology, but also on two other points; the petition was dismissed
on the ground that the conduct displayed by the Petitioner,
disentitled the Petitioner to discretionary reliefs under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. after considering the conduct of the
Petitioner and the fact that the Petitioner was an intervenor in the
Goa Foundation-1 matter before the Supreme Court, and was
fully aware of the manner in which the Goa Foundation-1
judgment would afect the Petitioner’s pending application,
Petitioner chose not to bring the fact of the pendency of its
application before the Supreme Court. he second ground on
which the Petition has been dismissed was that the Petitioner
indulged in running the mining lease, without any mining
agreement/lease being executed in its favour, these observations
have been made in paragraphs 16 and 17 of our judgment. he
Writ Petition was therefore dismissed not just on the submission
which is made before us today, but on two other grounds, which
we believe were also challenged in the Special Leave Petition
before the Supreme Court.
Page 4 of 6
28th September 2026
5-CAREV-18-26.DOC
11. For these reasons, we ind no case made out for review.
here is no error apparent on the face of the record. In fact, we
ind that the Review Petition is a total abuse of the process of this
Court, as even a reading of the Supreme Court’s order allowing
the Petitioner to withdraw the Special Leave Petition, does not
clearly grant the Petitioner leave to approach this Court in a
review application. he ground no.I (a, b, c and d) which is
pressed before us, is clearly not a ground of error apparent, as the
judgment under review has dealt with the case raised by the
petitioner of one not been covered by the Goa Foundation-1
judgment in great detail. As observed, the iling of this review
petition being an abuse of the process of Court, we therefore
impose costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on the Petitioner, who shall deposit
these costs in a fund to be created by the Goa High Court Bar
Association to be titled “Legal Training/Education Fund”; the
Goa High Court Bar Association shall maintain this fund through
a separate bank account, and the amounts so deposited therein be
utilized towards training of Advocates and imparting legal
education. he costs shall be deposited within a week from today.
12. We also take note of the fact that the costs originally
imposed on the Petitioner in our judgment dated 08.05.2026 in
the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has till date not been deposited with
the Goa State Legal Services Authority (GSLSA). he Petitioner
is directed to deposit those costs within a week from today. he
Member Secretary, GSLSA to accept the same.
Page 5 of 6
28th September 2026
5-CAREV-18-26.DOC
13. he Civil Application (Review) No.18/2026 and Misc.
Civil Application No.330/2026 stand disposed of in the above
terms.
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Signed by: SUCHITRA NANDAN Page 6 of 6
SINGBAL 28th September 2026
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 28/09/2026 16:08:04
Checking your session…