National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
B. After Rule 54 of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960 and Rule 54A:54-A - Where the State Government (or other authority) has not passed an order underRule 63A:(a)(b)(c)for a RP within four months from date of receipt of an application for RP,for a PL within ten months from the date of receipt of an application for PL;andfor ML within thirteen months from the date of receipt of an application forML, the aggrieved party may apply to the Central Government to exercise itspowers under Section 30 of the MMDR Act within 90 days of the expiry ofthe periods mentioned above.C. Delete the third proviso of Rule 63A - as this would be unnecessary in view of thetime limits provided for in Rule 54A as suggested above.11. I am of the opinion that introducing “deemed approval” concepts may encounterresistance from State Governments: justifiably so. The amendments proposed in para10 above are only in further implementation of the letter and spirit of the statute andthe Rules: they do not attempt to take away or whittle down the power of StateGovernments in respect of minerals owned by them, they only help keep the StateGovernments to adhere to the time-limits already set and imposed under existing law,and only in default of their exercising powers within such time limits can the CentralGovernment intervene.Date: 16th May, 2006Place: New Delhi(FALI S. NARIMAN)Senior Advocate260
To,The Chairman,High Level Committee(National Mineral Policy)Planning Commission,Yojna Bhawan,New Delhi.Annexure 3Sub.:-Recommendations of the High Level Committee - Disagreements ofthe States' Representatives.Dear Sir,The Draft Report on National Mineral Policy was discussed in themeeting of the High Level Committee held on 30 th June 2006 under yourchairmanship. In the said meeting, draft recommendations were discussed andbased on the deliberations, certain recommendations were modified.2. At the beginning of the above mentioned meeting, is was informed thatdespite the efforts of the Committee to arrive at a consensus, if there are stillcertain issued on which an agreement cannot be reached, then suchdisagreements may be communicated in writing to the Chairman within threedays.3. Sir, States' representatives have attended various meetings and haveactively participated in the deliberations of the Committee. We had expressedour views on various issues in the meetings and had given the same in writingalso from time to time to the officers of the Planning Commissions and theMinistry of Mines. One issue on which there was no agreement right from thebeginning is the issue relating to the solution to be suggested for ensuringadherence to / compliance with the prescribed time schedules for disposal ofapplications for mineral concessions by the authorities dealing with suchapplications, discussed in Chapter - II of the Report.4. It is seen from the write up and the recommendations made in "Chapter-IIProcedures for Granting Mineral Concessions" that the views expressed by theStates' representatives during the deliberations of the Committee have neitherbeen discussed in the text of the said Chapter, nor our suggestions been takeninto account in the recommendations contained in para 2.19 and para 2.20 of theReport (extracts of recommendations enclosed). It is seen from Chapter - II ofthe Draft Report that by amending section 30 of the MMDR Act 1957 andadding a new rule 54 A in the MCR 1960, it is proposed to give jurisdiction to261
- 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 236 and 237: ‘Efforts would also be made to gr
- 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 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
- Page 286 and 287: The Guidelines are structured in fi
- Page 288 and 289: There are many aspects relevant for
- Page 290 and 291: - Issues in which community partici
- Page 292 and 293: Annexure 7Royalty Accruals on Miner
- Page 294 and 295: Sl.No.MineralAnnexure 8 (cont.)2003
- Page 296 and 297: Annexure 91 THE SECOND SCHEDULE 1(S
- Page 298 and 299: (v) Group V Coals:(a) Non-Coking Co
- Page 300 and 301: 23. Iron Ore:(i) Lumps:(a) with 65
- Page 302 and 303: 45. Tin Five per cent of London Met
- Page 304 and 305: International Comparison of Royalty
- Page 306 and 307: Production, Consumption, Exports, a
To,The Chairman,High Level Committee(<strong>National</strong> <strong>Mineral</strong> <strong>Policy</strong>)Planning Commission,Yojna Bhawan,New Delhi.Annexure 3Sub.:-Recommendations <strong>of</strong> the High Level Committee - Disagreements <strong>of</strong>the States' Representatives.Dear Sir,The Draft Report on <strong>National</strong> <strong>Mineral</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> was discussed in themeeting <strong>of</strong> the High Level Committee held on 30 th June <strong>2006</strong> under yourchairmanship. In the said meeting, draft recommendations were discussed andbased on the deliberations, certain recommendations were modified.2. At the beginning <strong>of</strong> the above mentioned meeting, is was informed thatdespite the efforts <strong>of</strong> the Committee to arrive at a consensus, if there are stillcertain issued on which an agreement cannot be reached, then suchdisagreements may be communicated in writing to the Chairman within threedays.3. Sir, States' representatives have attended various meetings and haveactively participated in the deliberations <strong>of</strong> the Committee. We had expressedour views on various issues in the meetings and had given the same in writingalso from time to time to the <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the Planning Commissions and theMinistry <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mines</strong>. One issue on which there was no agreement right from thebeginning is the issue relating to the solution to be suggested for ensuringadherence to / compliance with the prescribed time schedules for disposal <strong>of</strong>applications for mineral concessions by the authorities dealing with suchapplications, discussed in Chapter - II <strong>of</strong> the Report.4. It is seen from the write up and the recommendations made in "Chapter-IIProcedures for Granting <strong>Mineral</strong> Concessions" that the views expressed by theStates' representatives during the deliberations <strong>of</strong> the Committee have neitherbeen discussed in the text <strong>of</strong> the said Chapter, nor our suggestions been takeninto account in the recommendations contained in para 2.19 and para 2.20 <strong>of</strong> theReport (extracts <strong>of</strong> recommendations enclosed). It is seen from Chapter - II <strong>of</strong>the Draft Report that by amending section 30 <strong>of</strong> the MMDR Act 1957 andadding a new rule 54 A in the MCR 1960, it is proposed to give jurisdiction to261
Change language