Bombay High Court

SHANTILAL KHUSHALDAS AND BROS. PVT. LTD., AND ANRversusSTATE OF GOA THR ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR

Disposal: Rejected
Bench: VALMIKI MENEZES AMIT S JAMSANDEKAR

Holding

The petitioners are not entitled to any renewal of the mining lease and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, Shantilal Khushaldas & Bros. Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking the withdrawal of two 2013 orders and a first renewal of mining lease TC No.44/1951 (Joleracho Dongor) and protection from coercive action. The High Court held that, in view of its earlier judgment and the Supreme Court’s decision in Goa Foundation v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 590, the petitioners are not entitled to any renewal of the lease. The Court explained that the mining block corresponding to TC No.44/1951 must be allotted only through fresh tenders and auction as directed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, no interim or final relief could be granted. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming the earlier dismissal in Writ Petition No.64 of 2017.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a first renewal of mining lease TC No.44/1951.
Whether the Supreme Court’s judgment in Goa Foundation v. Union of India applies to the present lease renewal claim.
Whether the High Court can grant interim or final relief directing withdrawal of the 2013 orders and restraining coercive action.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956

Subjects

mining lease
renewal
tender
auction
writ petition
Supreme Court judgment
mineral block
Goa

Judgment

2026:BHC-GOA:1032-DB




            Suzana

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                              WRIT PETITION NO.396 OF 2026


             1. Shantilal Khushaldas & Bros. Pvt.
                 Ltd., A Company incorporated
                 under the Companies Act, 1956,
                 (2013), having its registered
                 office at Salgaocar Bhavan,
                 Altinho, Panaji, Goa- 403001
                 through       its     Authorised
                 Representative Mr. Shivappa
                 Dyamappa Chawan with office
                 at the above address.

             2. Shivappa Dyamappa Chawan,
                Authorised Representative of
                the Petitioner No.1, Indian
                National, 56 years of age, with                 …..Petitioners.
                Office at Salgaocar Bhavan,
                Altinho, Panaji, Goa.

                     Versus

             1. State of Goa, through its Chief
                Secretary, having office at
                Secretariate, Porvorim, Goa.

             2. The Director, Directorate of
                Mines and Geology, having
                office at Menezes Braganza                      Respondents.
                Building, Panaji, Goa.

          Mr. Subodh S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, Ms.
          Neha Kholkar, Ms. Maria Carmita D'Costa Mashelkar, Ms. Sonam Dessai
          and Mr. Raj Chodankar, Advocates for the Petitioners.


                                         Page 1 of 4
                                         8th May, 2026
Mr. Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General with Ms. Maria Simone J.
Correia, Additional Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2.


P.C.

1.     Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.


2.     Heard.


3.     We have passed Judgment dismissing WP/64/2017 filed by the

Petitioner, in which the Petitioner had sought the following directions to

Respondents No.1 and 2:


       (i) Respondent No.1 and 2 to withdraw Order dated 05.11.2013 and
          Order dated 08.11.2013 to the extent it pertains to TC
          No.44/1951;

     (ii) Respondent 1 and 2 to grant a first renewal order in favour of the
          Petitioners in respect of Mining Lease, as was directed by this
          Court.

     (iii)Direct Respondent 1 and 2 not to take any coercive action against

         the Petitioners on the impugned Orders, during pendency of the

         Petition.




                                 Page 2 of 4
                                8th May, 2026
    4.   Since we have held in our Judgment passed earlier today that the

Petitioner is not entitled to any renewal of lease in respect of mine bearing

TC No.44/1951, named ‘Joleracho Dongor’ situated at Maina/Cavorem,

Quepem – Goa, and we have further held that even in the circumstances

that the Petitioner had obtained an Order on its representation dated

07.12.2005 granting the same, the mining operations in mine TC

No.44/1951 would also be covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court

in Goa Foundation v/s Union of India and others1 (GF-1). Since

we have held that the Petitioner would not be entitled to first renewal of

the mining lease and certainly not entitled to a second renewal that to

extend the lease to 22.11.2007. Having held so, the Petitioner would not

be entitled to any reliefs in this Petition, more so since, in line with the

directions of the Supreme Court in GF-I, the only manner in which a

mining lease for the mineral block No. XVIII at Cavorem, Maina,

corresponding to mining lease TC No.44/1951 could be done by inviting

fresh tenders and holding auction for the said mining block.

Consequently, therefore neither interim nor final reliefs can be granted




1
    (2014) 6 SCC 590
                                 Page 3 of 4
                                8th May, 2026
                  to the Petitioner. The Petition is therefore rejected in view of our

                  Judgment dated 08.05.2026 in Writ Petition No.64 of 2017.




                  AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.                      VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




                                               Page 4 of 4
                                               8th May, 2026
Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 08/05/2026 16:08:27

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…