National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
‘Efforts would also be made to grant mineral concessions to consortia of small-scaleminers and users who are otherwise qualified for a cluster of small deposits so thatthe benefits of economies of scale are reaped’.7. Secretary (C&I), Government of Karnataka referred to the suggestion for an ‘opensky’ policy in respect of RPs and suggested that before granting concessionsseamlessly at the next stage of PL there should be evaluation of the work carried outby the RP holder. In response, Secretary (Mines) stated that in every case the RPholder would have to submit data for acquiring LAPL/PL/ML. He also clarified thatan ‘open sky’ policy would apply not only to areas that were greenfield areas, i.e.where no work had been done by GSI or any other public agency, but also to areaswhere GSI/RP holders had given up work. Secretary (Industry), Government ofJharkhand suggested that areas on which work had been given up by differentorganisations should also come within the purview of non-exclusive RPs. It wasagreed that the open sky RP policy would apply not only to greenfield areas but alsoto areas where GSI/RP holders had given up work without identifying any workableprospects. It was also agreed to add ‘Non-exclusive RPs may be granted by the statewithout prior approval of the Centre even in respect of Scheduled minerals’ at theend of the paragraph.8. Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, referred to the point ‘theAct be amended to exclude ore bodies explored and delineated by public agencies atpublic expense as mentioned in para 1.31 and 1.45 and suggested that in place ofexplored and delineated it should be fully prospected’. It was agreed to replace thewords explored and delineated with fully prospected in chapter I as well as in chapterVIII.9. Representative of CII suggested that under the mining lease, instead of writing valueaddition within the territorial limits of Scheduled Area it would be better if it werewithin the territorial limits of the state. Secretary (C&I), Government of Karnatakastated that there were no Scheduled Areas in Karnataka and instead of restricting toScheduled Areas it could be within the state. This issue was deliberated at length andit was agreed to replace the words ‘territorial limits of the Scheduled Areas’ withterritorial limit of the state and also to add ’In case of more than one applicant226
offering to set up such industry in the state, the state government may grant the MLfor such an ore body to the applicant which it adjudges to be the most deserving interms of the criteria (a) to (d) of Section 11 (3) of the Act. In such cases, the full costof exploration by the public agencies should be recovered.’10. Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh raised the issue of theduration of concessions and suggested that the duration of the exclusive LAPLsshould be less than eight years as LAPLs were granted only when some amount ofwork had already been done by the applicant and it would not be appropriate to blockthe area under LAPL for a long duration. This issue was discussed and it was agreedthat ‘the duration of the exclusive LAPL would be six years extendable by anothertwo years’.11. Secretary (Industry), Government of Jharkhand, opined that the point made underSecurity of Tenure that ‘a RP (non-exclusive) holder should have an automatic rightto a PL on first-come-first-served basis with no exceptions or exemptions‘ was toostrong and should be reformulated. Chairman remarked that the idea was to eliminatediscretionary powers of the Centre /state. After further deliberation it was agreed todelete the words ’with no exceptions or exemptions’.12. Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Chhatisgarh, Secretary (Industry)Government of Jharkhand, and Secretary (Steel and Mines), Government of Orissadrew attention to the changes recommended in Section 4A(1) and suggested that thewords ‘in the interest of national security‘ could be replaced with ‘in the interest ofnational security and public works’ and Rule 27(1)(b) could be amended to give anautomatic right to the miner to mine only the associated minerals discovered and notthe additional minerals discovered. Further, the recommendations regarding deletionof Rule 27(1)(m) and Rule 27(3) of MCR that give the authority to the stategovernment to pre-empt minerals and put restrictive conditions in concessions wasdiscussed and it was agreed these Rules needed to be eliminated. The lease deed formshould be exhaustive and should include all minerals and associated minerals forwhich the applicant may have applied and to which he may be entitled. The formshould also contain the possibility of the state government imposing additionalconditions on captive miners and value adders. The suggestions were accepted for227
- Page 186 and 187: India enterprise) reported that the
- Page 188 and 189: chloride process pigment technology
- Page 190 and 191: are disposed of in the mined-out ar
- Page 192 and 193: directed to ensure that the AERB/AM
- Page 194 and 195: would have to be carefully drafted
- Page 196 and 197: ‘In coordination with the Geologi
- Page 198 and 199: Exploration Licences• The current
- Page 200 and 201: • The fees should be significantl
- Page 202 and 203: surveys have been undertaken, the P
- Page 204 and 205: automatic until the exhaustion of t
- Page 206 and 207: y stating in the MMDR Act that a pr
- Page 208 and 209: departmental representative for sec
- Page 210 and 211: therefore (under Rule 63A), pass su
- Page 212 and 213: • Section 12(1) of the MMDR Act s
- Page 214 and 215: o The lessee should not be asked to
- Page 216 and 217: again and the State Mines Departmen
- Page 218 and 219: • As in the past, no environmenta
- Page 220 and 221: oad and rail, and lack of long-term
- Page 222 and 223: government to the applicants who ar
- Page 224 and 225: next three-year period as well. In
- Page 226 and 227: • Rates of dead rent should be ra
- Page 228 and 229: measure to provide a level playing
- Page 230 and 231: • In respect of three titanium be
- Page 232 and 233: No-I&M-25(3)/2005Government of Indi
- Page 234 and 235: No-I&M-25(3)/2005Planning Commissio
- Page 238 and 239: ecommending amendments to the Act a
- Page 240 and 241: etained as a Prescribed Substance u
- Page 242 and 243: OthersShri Arvind VarmaEx-Secretary
- Page 244 and 245: 16. Reserve Bank of India17. M/s Ji
- Page 246 and 247: the RP holders in areas beyond 25 s
- Page 248 and 249: Appendix ERecommendations of the Ex
- Page 250 and 251: (1) Provide proximate and strategic
- Page 252 and 253: technology to enter the Indian stee
- Page 254 and 255: Cross-country Comparison of Mining
- Page 256 and 257: Appendix F (cont.)Country Mining La
- Page 258 and 259: Cross-country Comparison of Mining
- Page 260 and 261: Appendix G (cont.)Country Mining le
- Page 262 and 263: CountryAppendix H (Cont.)Environmen
- Page 264 and 265: AustraliaIndonesia 9 4 Not specifie
- Page 266 and 267: Annexure 1 (cont.)Geologicalenviron
- Page 268 and 269: operations are undertaken over a fa
- Page 270 and 271: B. After Rule 54 of the Mineral Con
- Page 272 and 273: the Central Government to entertain
- Page 274 and 275: applications, could exercise the ju
- Page 276 and 277: We most humbly request that the abo
- Page 278 and 279: Annexure 4The 2002Sustainability Re
- Page 280 and 281: While unique in its coverage and pr
- Page 282 and 283: • facilitate comparability• add
- Page 284 and 285: AssuranceJust as investors look to
‘Efforts would also be made to grant mineral concessions to consortia <strong>of</strong> small-scaleminers and users who are otherwise qualified for a cluster <strong>of</strong> small deposits so thatthe benefits <strong>of</strong> economies <strong>of</strong> scale are reaped’.7. Secretary (C&I), Government <strong>of</strong> Karnataka referred to the suggestion for an ‘opensky’ policy in respect <strong>of</strong> RPs and suggested that before granting concessionsseamlessly at the next stage <strong>of</strong> PL there should be evaluation <strong>of</strong> the work carried outby the RP holder. In response, Secretary (<strong>Mines</strong>) stated that in every case the RPholder would have to submit data for acquiring LAPL/PL/ML. He also clarified thatan ‘open sky’ policy would apply not only to areas that were greenfield areas, i.e.where no work had been done by GSI or any other public agency, but also to areaswhere GSI/RP holders had given up work. Secretary (Industry), Government <strong>of</strong>Jharkhand suggested that areas on which work had been given up by differentorganisations should also come within the purview <strong>of</strong> non-exclusive RPs. It wasagreed that the open sky RP policy would apply not only to greenfield areas but alsoto areas where GSI/RP holders had given up work without identifying any workableprospects. It was also agreed to add ‘Non-exclusive RPs may be granted by the statewithout prior approval <strong>of</strong> the Centre even in respect <strong>of</strong> Scheduled minerals’ at theend <strong>of</strong> the paragraph.8. Additional Chief Secretary, Government <strong>of</strong> Chhattisgarh, referred to the point ‘theAct be amended to exclude ore bodies explored and delineated by public agencies atpublic expense as mentioned in para 1.31 and 1.45 and suggested that in place <strong>of</strong>explored and delineated it should be fully prospected’. It was agreed to replace thewords explored and delineated with fully prospected in chapter I as well as in chapterVIII.9. Representative <strong>of</strong> CII suggested that under the mining lease, instead <strong>of</strong> writing valueaddition within the territorial limits <strong>of</strong> Scheduled Area it would be better if it werewithin the territorial limits <strong>of</strong> the state. Secretary (C&I), Government <strong>of</strong> Karnatakastated that there were no Scheduled Areas in Karnataka and instead <strong>of</strong> restricting toScheduled Areas it could be within the state. This issue was deliberated at length andit was agreed to replace the words ‘territorial limits <strong>of</strong> the Scheduled Areas’ withterritorial limit <strong>of</strong> the state and also to add ’In case <strong>of</strong> more than one applicant226
Change language