National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the Central Government to entertain applications from the aggrieved parties andtake a final decision thereon in the event of failure of the State Governments totake decision on mineral concession applications within the prescribed timeframes.5. We, most respectfully disagree with the above mentionedrecommendations. Our consistent view in this regard right from the beginningof the deliberations of the Committee has been that transfer of originaljurisdiction of the states to recommend / decide the mineral concessionapplications to the Central Government is not, and cannot be accepted as asolution to the problem of alleged delays in decision making. Our views,expressed during the deliberations of the formal and informal meetings in thisregard are summarised below: -5.1 The states being the owners of minerals, original jurisdiction in respect ofmaking recommendations / taking decisions on mineral concession applicationshas been and must continue to vest in the States. Transfer of original jurisdictionof the States in the cases in which some delays occur in decision making to theCentral Government is totally unacceptable.5.2 It is further seen from Chapter - II of the Draft Report that whereas thetime limits for deciding applications by the State Governments are proposed tobe either compressed or kept around the present level, there is norecommendation even for prescribing the time limits within which the CentralGovernment should decide the revision applications. Further, no statutorysolution(s) have been recommended for ensuring adherence to the time limitsfor deciding revision applications by the Central Government. The net result ofthe recommendation, thus, would be that the States will be deprived of theiroriginal jurisdiction after the periods specified in the proposed new Rule 54 A.This is unacceptable.5.3 The position obtaining in the States presently is that the time limitsprescribed for disposal of applications at times are/cannot be adhered to due tovariety of reasons beyond the control of the State Governments, such as nonsubmissionof requisite information / documents by the applicants, nonavailabilityof the data / field reports about the mineral bearing areas appliedfor, which are necessary for decision making. Delays take place not for thereason that State Governments do so deliberately, but for the reason that thetime limits prescribed are not adequate, particularly for processing the multipleapplication cases. However, discussion in Chapter - II gives only one sided viewas if the State Governments keep the applications pending deliberately and thesituation is so alarming that to remedy the situation a drastic / extra-ordinarystatutory solution namely, depriving the States of their powers, is required. Wedo not agree with this.262
5.4 It would have been better if a work study to know the status of pendencyof the mineral concession applications and analyze the reasons for delays wereconducted and then based on the outcome of such work study, remedialsolutions / mechanisms for avoidance of delays were suggested. It is furtherseen that neither the Ministry of Mines nor any other official agency provided tothe Committee the actual statistics in support of the apprehensions about theacuteness of the problem. The Committee has straight way sought to makerecommendations to transfer the jurisdiction from the State Government to theCentral Government without deliberating / finding a statutory solution to theproblem of delays that would take place at the level of the Central Government.The prime facie view of the most Committee members during the deliberationswas that it would not be possible to put in place any statutory mechanism toensure disposal of revision applications by the Central Government within thespecified time period.5.5 It has been presumed in the Draft Report that by transferring thejurisdiction from the State Governments to the Central Government, theproblem of alleged delays in the disposal of mineral concession applicationswould get solved. However, such presumption is not valid and the suggestedsolution would not work. Presently, the tribunal exercising the powers of theCentral Government under section 30 of the MMDR Act 1957 takesinordinately long period of time in deciding the revision applications, whichfinds no mention in the Report. Solution suggested in the Draft Report forensuring timely disposal of mineral concession applications is not likely todeliver unless some foolproof mechanism is also put in place to decide therevision cases in a time bound manner. In our view, no such foolproof statutorysolution is possible. Therefore, the net result of the impugned recommendationswould be that only the original jurisdiction would get transferred to the CentralGovernment without any effective statutory mechanism to ensure that thetransferred cases shall get decided within the specified time limits. Theproposed recommendations are, therefore, not a solution to the problem and willonly deprive the State of their powers.5.6 It is seen that whereas the impugned recommendations contain theminutest details as to what new clause in section 30 and what new rule as Rule54 A should be enacted / framed for transferring the jurisdiction from the Statesto the Centre, nothing of the sort has been done / reflected about the exercise ofthe powers in a time bound manner by the Central Governments inspite offlagging of this issue at the initial stages of deliberations on the report of theCommittee.5.7 Members of the Committee were informed that the secretariat of theCommittee had obtained legal opinion on the issue whether the CentralGovernment, to ensure time bound disposal of the mineral concession263
Page 2 and 3:
National Mineral PolicyReport of th
Page 4 and 5:
ContentsAcronyms...................
Page 6 and 7:
Annexure 5: Using the GRI Guideline
Page 8 and 9:
GDP gross domestic productGIS Geogr
Page 10 and 11:
UNFCUSVATWCUUnited Nations Framewor
Page 12 and 13:
Introduction1. The Government of In
Page 14 and 15:
issues relate to fund raising by pr
Page 16 and 17:
termination of MLs, lowering of cei
Page 18 and 19:
• In the case of large mining ope
Page 20 and 21:
investment. The work done by GSI co
Page 22 and 23:
mainly for minerals of base metals
Page 24 and 25:
1.21 This situation has changed dra
Page 26 and 27:
absent. A study by the United Natio
Page 28 and 29:
example, a mining major may outsour
Page 30 and 31:
would otherwise remain unexploited
Page 32 and 33:
the policy environment must continu
Page 34 and 35:
‘A thrust is to be given to explo
Page 36 and 37:
In reviewing the MMDR Act, it is ne
Page 38 and 39:
permissible activities in order to
Page 40 and 41:
(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)The current two-tie
Page 42 and 43:
per plan should be significantly hi
Page 44 and 45:
Duration of Concessions1.48 In the
Page 46 and 47:
10,000 sq. km in a state. This has
Page 48 and 49:
(ii)(iii)(iv)The maximum total area
Page 50 and 51:
e obviated if the lease deed is exh
Page 52 and 53:
elinquishment of areas by the lesse
Page 54 and 55:
to give priority to the prior appli
Page 56 and 57:
(v)(vi)(vii)Rules should be prescri
Page 58 and 59:
esponsible for all rights, liabilit
Page 60 and 61:
ut also the revenue generated from
Page 62 and 63:
government at the Secretariat. A le
Page 64 and 65:
Secretary. If the Directorate is in
Page 66 and 67:
(i) All applications for mineral co
Page 68 and 69:
application. A similar website shou
Page 70 and 71:
concerned State Government (or othe
Page 72 and 73:
Further, Rule 7D of the MCR specifi
Page 74 and 75:
mission mode through, inter alia, t
Page 76 and 77:
Chapter 3Forest Conservation and En
Page 78 and 79:
conservation. There are trade-offs
Page 80 and 81:
ICMM AND SDF3.8 The ICMM membership
Page 82 and 83:
higher level. The basic approach is
Page 84 and 85:
(i) To minimize displacement and to
Page 86 and 87:
affected PAPs in the mining operati
Page 88 and 89:
that a well-regulated and responsib
Page 90 and 91:
(iii)Notwithstanding the above, sur
Page 92 and 93:
egard, all ‘forest’ land must b
Page 94 and 95:
Figure 3.1: Procedure for Processin
Page 96 and 97:
should be authorised to grant or re
Page 98 and 99:
formulation and appraisal of the EI
Page 100 and 101:
3.41 Recognising the need to make t
Page 102 and 103:
Figure 3.3: Public Hearing/NOC from
Page 104 and 105:
Chapter 4Infrastructure Needs and F
Page 106 and 107:
4.5 Logistics is the key to access
Page 108 and 109:
Table 4.1: Mineral Production in In
Page 110 and 111:
necessary, therefore, that in infra
Page 112 and 113:
to the ports of Haldia and Paradip
Page 114 and 115:
Connectivity of Major Ports, brough
Page 116 and 117:
(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)At Visakhapatnam Po
Page 118 and 119:
was of the opinion that while the m
Page 120 and 121:
such an arrangement, the Ministry o
Page 122 and 123:
developed, controlled, and run by s
Page 124 and 125:
subject to overt and covert restric
Page 126 and 127:
consideration to the end use of the
Page 128 and 129:
(iii)parameters laid down in existi
Page 130 and 131:
Chapter 6Augmenting State Revenues(
Page 132 and 133:
the value addition question conside
Page 134 and 135:
In a system of ad valorem rates of
Page 136 and 137:
must provide revenues sufficient to
Page 138 and 139:
Box 6.1: Methods of Valuation of Ro
Page 140 and 141:
Another point to be borne in mind b
Page 142 and 143:
ailable, cognisable criminal offenc
Page 144 and 145:
e worked out. This should be string
Page 146 and 147:
7.3 Considering the high-risk natur
Page 148 and 149:
Table 7.2: Minimum Listing Requirem
Page 150 and 151:
(ii)(iii)only. Such funds have not
Page 152 and 153:
addition, the minimum post-issue fa
Page 154 and 155:
and hence this ore should be conser
Page 156 and 157:
miners distort the market for their
Page 158 and 159:
7.22 The current law does not make
Page 160 and 161:
is mostly of low grade magnetite. H
Page 162 and 163:
Most magnetite findings are entirel
Page 164 and 165:
in UK 206 kg, and in China it grew
Page 166 and 167:
metres. The use of down hole drill
Page 168 and 169:
7.42 Despite the fact that SME mini
Page 170 and 171:
also be a consideration. However, t
Page 172 and 173:
price, reduce profitability, and pu
Page 174 and 175:
IMPACT ON DOMESTIC IRON ORE PRICES
Page 176 and 177:
7.58 Export of iron ore fines on a
Page 178 and 179:
POLICY ON BEACH SAND MINERALS7.64 B
Page 180 and 181:
not contain more than 0.1 per cent
Page 182 and 183:
7.73 On 18 January 2006, the DAE no
Page 184 and 185:
with the Centre is mainly to ensure
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 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 270 and 271: B. After Rule 54 of the Mineral Con
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
show all

National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?