National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

• The fees should be significantly higher than the prescribed rates (as of 30 June 2006)for all the concessions, viz. RP, LAPL, and PL, in order to prevent nuisanceapplications, especially applications that attempt to pre-empt genuine explorers. Also,the penalties for LAPL and PL holders who do not explore as per plan should besignificantly higher than the prescribed penalties (as of 30 June 2006). [1.44]Mining Leases• The MMDR Act should be amended to exclude ore bodies fully prospected by publicagencies at public expense, as mentioned in paragraphs 1.32 and 1.46, from thepurview of Section 11 of the MMDR Act. [1.47]• A fresh provision should be introduced requiring the Central government through theGSI (for GSI-prospected areas) and through IBM (for other than GSI-prospectedareas) to notify all areas that have been prospected (detailed exploration) bygovernment agencies and are ready for mining within a time-bound framework. [1.47]• The state governments, through their Directorates in respect of non-Schedule Iminerals and in consultation with IBM in respect of Schedule I minerals, may becharged with the task of disposing of the ore bodies in such notified areas through atransparent tender/auction process. In the case of iron ore and bauxite, which are fullyprospected, the disposal may be through the state governments with the association ofIBM. [1.47]• Detailed rules and procedures for such disposal by tender/auction be laid down in theMCDR. [1.47]• However, in the interest of overall development of the state, the state government maywaive the tender/auction procedures for ore bodies occurring within the state andgrant the lease to an applicant who is otherwise qualified in terms of criteria (a) to (c)of Section 11(3) of the Act but who is also willing to set up the downstream industrywithin the territorial limits of the state. In case of more than one applicant offering toset up such industry within the state, the state government may grant the ML for such190