The High Court has dismissed a review petition filed by the NGO Goa Foundation challenging the court’s earlier judgment upholding the Goa Government’s Mining Dump Policy, 2023. The court held that a review petition cannot be used as “an appeal in disguise” and found no error apparent on the face of the record that would justify rehearing the matter.

The Goa Foundation had originally filed a public interest litigation contesting Clause 2.2 of the Dump Policy, 2023. That clause permits former leaseholders to remove inventoried mineral dumps located on private land outside leasehold areas within five years, subject to payment of land conversion fees, penalties under the Goa Land Revenue Code, and applicable royalties.

The Foundation argued that the State should be required to auction the iron ore in these dumps to protect the public exchequer, rather than allowing removal rights to be granted directly to former leaseholders. On May 7, 2026, the High Court dismissed the PIL, finding the policy mechanism to be fair, transparent, and economically sound.

In its review petition, the Goa Foundation sought recall of the May 7 judgment, relying on paragraph 63 of the order, which stated that “it must be presumed that the lease holder has already paid royalty with regard to the Iron Ore, if any, contained in the dumps.”
The petitioner NGO contended that this observation was fundamentally flawed and vitiated the judgment, noting that the State itself acknowledged royalties are payable only at the time of removal of ore from the dumps, not in advance.

The High Court rejected the review petition, finding that the paragraph 63 statement was contextual and not a decisive finding of fact or the foundation of the main judgment. The court observed that deleting or disregarding that passage would not affect the original dismissal of the writ petition.

The court further reiterated that review jurisdiction is narrowly confined to correcting patent errors on the face of the record and does not permit re-evaluation of merits or substitution of the court’s views. If a party believes the principal judgment is erroneous, the proper remedy is an appeal to a higher forum, not a review petition.

With the dismissal of the review application, the High Court reaffirmed its May 7 ruling upholding the State’s 2023 Dump Policy.