Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 28 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Shantilal Khushaldas and Brothers Pvt Ltd, represented by Shri Shivappa Dyamappa Chawan.
  • Respondents: State of Goa through its Chief Secretary and others.
  • Applications: Civil Application (Review) No.18/2026 and Misc. Civil Application No.330/2026.
  • The petitioner sought a review of the judgment dated 08 May 2026, pressing only ground I (a, b, c, d) after withdrawing all other grounds.
  • The Advocate General highlighted that Special Leave Petition (C) No.21933/2026 had been withdrawn and no specific leave was granted to approach this Court for a review, referencing the Supreme Court order dated 19 June 2026 (paragraphs 1 and 2).
  • It was submitted that Mining Lease Lot No. 18, the subject of the original writ petition, had been allotted on 3 July 2026 to Dharati Dredging via a Letter of Intent, with the first instalment and required security deposits already paid.
  • The petitioner argued that the Goa Foundation‑1 judgment, which formed the basis of the impugned judgment, dealt only with leases where the first renewal had been granted and the lease was operational, whereas the petitioner’s renewal was still pending, making the case an exception.

Court’s Reasoning and Findings

  • The Court noted that the judgment under review had carefully considered paragraphs 13‑15, which quoted observations from the Goa Foundation‑1 judgment and later referenced in Goa Foundation‑2, concluding that no error apparent on the face of the record existed.
  • The original writ petition was dismissed not only because the petitioner’s first renewal application was pending before the Directorate of Mines and Geology, but also on two additional grounds:

1. The petitioner’s conduct disqualified it from discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the petitioner was aware of the impact of the Goa Foundation‑1 judgment on its pending application yet failed to disclose this fact.

2. The petitioner was found to be operating the mining lease without a duly executed mining agreement or lease.

  • These grounds were also raised in the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
  • The Court held that the review petition did not raise a ground of error apparent on the record and constituted an abuse of process, especially given the Supreme Court’s order allowing withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition without expressly permitting a review in this Court.

Final Outcome

  • The review petition (Civil Application No.18/2026 and Misc. Civil Application No.330/2026) is dismissed.
  • Costs of Rs 1,00,000 are imposed on the petitioner. The amount must be deposited in a fund to be created by the Goa High Court Bar Association, titled “Legal Training/Education Fund,” to be maintained through a separate bank account and used for advocate training and legal education. Deposit to be made within one week of the order.
  • The earlier costs of Rs 5,00,000 imposed by the Court’s judgment dated 08 May 2026, which remain unpaid, are also directed to be deposited with the Goa State Legal Services Authority (GSLSA) within a week. The Member Secretary of GSLSA is instructed to accept the payment.
  • The matter is disposed of in the terms above.

Topics: Court Review, Mining Lease