ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE RESPONDENTS HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR MINING LEASE RIGHTS FOR EXTRACTION OF THE MINERAL (BAUXITE) OVER 720.25 HECTARES IN MOPA, CHANDEL, WARKHAND AND KESARVARNE VILLAGES OF PERNEM TALUKA IN NORTH GOA FOR A PERIOD OF 30 YEARS. THERE WAS AN UNREASONABLE DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATION. THE LITIGATION WAS FOUGHT AT DIFFERENT STAGES BEFORE DIFFERENT FORUMS AND FINALLY CULMINATED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECRETARY (MINES), DATED 31-8-2000. THE RESPONDENTS FILED A WRIT PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT IMPLEADING THE STATE GOVERNMENT AS THE RESPONDENT AND SEEKING ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES. IN THE WRIT PETITION, THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS WERE SOUGHT FOR AMONGST OTHERS: "(A) QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE REFUSAL OF THE RESPONDENTS TO EXECUTE THE LEASE DEED IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF GRANT, AS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER DATED 31-8-2000 AND THE LETTERS DATED 16-11-2000. (B) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO EXECUTE THE LEASE DEED IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF GRANT WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS." 3. BY THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-10-2002, WHICH IS IMPUGNED HEREIN, THE HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION AND DIRECTED RULE TO BE MADE ABSOLUTE IN TERMS OF PRAYER CLAUSES (A) AND (B) ABOVESAID. THE APPELLANTS HEREIN WERE DIRECTED TO EXECUTE THE LEASE DEED WITHIN FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF THE JUDGMENT. 4. THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS PUT IN ISSUE THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT BY THIS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS PETITION, A SUBSEQUENT EVENT HAS HAPPENED. IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE (EXTRAORDINARY) OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GOA, DATED 20-2-2003, A NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 HAS BEEN PUBLISHED PROPOSING TO ACQUIRE A HUGE CHUNK OF LAND INCLUDING THE LAND FORMING THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF MINING LEASE, SUBJECT-MATTER OF THESE PROCEEDINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AT MOPA IN PERNEM TALUKA. 5. IT IS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT STATE GOVERNMENT THAT IN VIEW OF THIS NOTIFICATION, THE LEASE DEED CANNOT NOW BE EXECUTED. THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS SUBMITTED THAT BY THIS SUBSEQUENT EVENT, THEY CANNOT BE PLACED IN A SITUATION MORE WORSE THAN WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES AND THAT OF THE HIGH COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT. 6. THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS SUBMITTED THAT BY THIS SUBSEQUENT EVENT, THEY CANNOT BE PLACED IN A SITUATION MORE WORSE THAN WHAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES AND THAT OF THE HIGH COURT WOULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT. 6. WE FIND SUBSTANCE, SOME MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE PARTIES. HOWEVER, LOOKING TO THE FACTS NOTICED IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT REGARDING HOW THE EXECUTION OF MINING LEASE WAS DELAYED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT EXCEPT FOR A LITTLE MODIFICATION THEREIN. WE FEEL THAT IN VIEW OF THE SUBSEQUENT NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894, THE STATE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO ACTUALLY EXECUTE THE LEASE DEED NOW. WE HOLD THAT THE LEASE DEED SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EXECUTED IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT AND THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES INCLUDING THAT OF COMPENSATION SHALL BE WORKED OUT ACCORDINGLY. 7. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT IN THE ORDER OF THE SECRETARY (MINES) DATED 31-8-2000, THE SECRETARY HAS ALREADY DIRECTED THE COMPENSATION TO BE OFFERED TO THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE EXTINCTION OF THEIR RIGHTS. THAT SHALL BE DONE. 8. THE APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OF SUBJECT TO THE ABOVESAID OBSERVATIONS. 9. LEAVE GRANTED. 10. THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAKES CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS AND PASSES STRICTURES ON THE CONDUCT OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL REPRESENTING THE STATE OF GOA BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. 11. THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL REITERATES WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE GROUNDS OF THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION, SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT, THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL TO MISLEAD THE COURT; IN ANY CASE, HE WAS NOT LACKING IN BONA FIDES AND INTENDED TO COOPERATE WITH THE COURT FULLY. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND THE DELAY IN SUBMITTING THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT, IF ANY, WAS BONA FIDE AND UNINTENTIONAL. 12. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. 13. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IS SET ASIDE. 12. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. 13. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IS SET ASIDE. ALL THE OBSERVATIONS MADE THEREIN AND THE STRICTURES PASSED STAND WIPED OUT. HOWEVER, THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ALSO ASSESSED AND IMPOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS 20,000 BY WAY OF "FINE" ON THE APPELLANT. VIDE ORDER DATED 25-11-2002, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER, BASED ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL: "SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS 20,000 IS CONCERNED, ALTHOUGH THE WORD USED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS FINE AMOUNT, HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR IMPOSING FINE BUT THE EXPRESSION FINE E AMOUNT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN USED INADVERTENTLY FOR COSTS. WE CLARIFY THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 20,000 MAY BE TREATED AS COSTS. LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL STATES THAT THE AMOUNT OF COST HAS BEEN DEPOSITED AND THAT IS THE END OF THE MATTER SO FAR AS COSTS ARE CONCERNED." 14. LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL STATES THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 20,000 HAS BEEN DEPOSITED WITH THE HIGH COURT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES ARE AGREEABLE THAT THIS AMOUNT MAY BE RELEASED TO THE STATE LEGAL AID SERVICES AUTHORITY AND THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT CLAIM REFUND OF THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED. 15. ORDER ACCORDINGLY.