12.07.2015 Views

National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

ecommending amendments to the Act and Rules respectively. The representatives <strong>of</strong>the states also suggested that the reservation provisions in paragraph 1.72 for PSUsfor exploration and mining should be retained after modifying them so as to limittheir scope to specified purposes such as to meet the requirement <strong>of</strong> SMEs for rawmaterials.13. Additional Chief Secretary, Government <strong>of</strong> Chhattisgarh and other representatives <strong>of</strong>the state governments invited attention to recommendations regarding ‘Adherence totime schedule for consideration <strong>of</strong> applications for RP/LAPL/PL and ML and in theevent <strong>of</strong> failure <strong>of</strong> the state government to take a decision within the time frameenvisaged in Rule 63A’. It was argued that provision should also be made in the Actand the Rules to safeguard against situations in which the Centre did not takedecision within the prescribed time frame. After a brief discussion it was agreed torecommend that ‘necessary changes should be made in the laws to provide that wherethe Centre does not grant prior approval in cases referred to it by the stategovernment within the specified period, such prior approval should be deemed tohave been granted. Further, in the applications received under Section 30 <strong>of</strong> the Actin a situation in which no order has been made by the state government, there shouldbe a time limit imposed on the Centre for disposal <strong>of</strong> the application within such timelimit. A solution should also be found to ensure that the Centre adheres to the timelimit.14. Representative <strong>of</strong> CII suggested that under Value Addition, in deciding amongmultiple applicants for direct PL or direct LAPL it would be better to use the word‘preference’ may be given by the state government in place <strong>of</strong> ‘additional weight’.The suggestion was accepted.15. Secretary (Steel and <strong>Mines</strong>), Government <strong>of</strong> Orissa and other representatives <strong>of</strong>states put forward the view that while the general rule could be that ore bodies fullyprospected by public agencies would be auctioned as envisaged in chapter 1, the stategovernments should have the right to waive the auction procedures in cases in whichthe applicant proposed to set up the industry based on the mineral within the state.The suggestion was accepted.228

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!