National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

government may deem fit’ should be deleted and the words ‘in the interest of nationalsecurity and public works’ added. [1.60]• In Section 31, the sweeping powers given to the Central government forcircumventing any of the provisions of the MCR and MCDR, and that too in a nontransparentmanner, need to be circumscribed, so that intervention of Centralgovernment affecting security of tenure of the concessionaire, if at all necessary, ispossible only in narrowly defined circumstances. It is not enough for the Centralgovernment to record the reasons in writing. [1.60]• Rule 26(1) of MCR, which gives the state government the authority to refuse anapplication for a ML, should be amended to ensure that it does not come in the way ofa smooth and seamless transfer from one concession to another. [1.60]• Rule 27(1)(b) should be amended to give an automatic right to the miner to mineassociated minerals discovered in the course of mining subject to a suitable fee beingpaid and the mining plan being amended with the approval of IBM. [1.60]• Rules 27(1)(m) and 27(3) of MCR, giving the authority to the state to pre-emptminerals and put restrictive conditions, should be deleted. The lease deed form shouldbe exhaustive and should include all minerals and associated minerals for whichapplicants may have applied and to which they may be entitled. The form should alsocontain additional conditions imposed by the state governments on captive miners andvalue adders. [1.60]• Rule 34 of MCR, authorising the state to reduce or exclude an area from theentitlement of a PL holder to a ML, should be deleted except in the case of specifiedpublic purposes. [1.60]• Mineral concession holders should have the right to renewal of the concession if theyhave met the obligations of his concession. As the term ‘renewal’ is used to meanfresh grant in judicial parlance, the word ‘extension’ should be used instead of‘renewal’ wherever it occurs in the Act or Rules. Extension of the ML should be193