National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines
applications, could exercise the jurisdiction of the State Governments in case offailure of the State Government in deciding such applications within theprescribed time limit. However, no legal opinion appears to have been taken onthe issue whether and how it can be ensured by statutory changes in the MMDRAct 1957 that the Central Government decides revision applications within thespecified time period. It was imperative that opinions on both the issues weretaken together for the reason that if reply to the latter is negative, the intendedobjective would not be met and the whole exercise to address the problembecomes infructuous. If the reply to the latter issue is negative, the result wouldbe that the applications that allegedly remain pending with the states willcontinue to remain pending with the Central Government. The recommendationwould, thus, only result into transfer of jurisdiction from the States to theCentre, which is not acceptable.5.8 In our assessment, as a result of the impugned recommendations, theState Governments, to abide by the inadequate time schedules, particularly inthe case of multiple applications, running in hundreds in some cases, would becompelled to take decisions without complete information / data / documentsand the quality of disposal would suffer. This would lead to long drawnlitigations, with more and more revisions and writs being filed, blocking themineral bearing areas in litigations. The impugned recommendations, thus,being un-implement able in spirit, would be counter productive.5.9 In deciding the revision cases by the Central Government in multipleapplication cases that would be filed under the proposed new clause (ii) ofsection 30, inordinate delays are sure to take place for the reason that in suchcases, a large number of applicants would need to be heard by the CentralGovernment before taking a decision. When large number of such casesconverge at the Central Government level, the pendency of cases in the Ministryof Mines might become unmanageable. The officers of the State Governmentwould also get over-burdened as they would be required to present the case ofthe State Government before the Central Government rather than devoting theirtime for disposal of original applications. Further, the State Governmentsthemselves would need to become parties to the litigation and appear before theCentral Government, an unhappy / undesirable situation for the States.5.10 The experience in the field has been that without the active support andconcurrence of the State Governments, it is not possible to develop onshoreminerals and mineral oil resources even if mineral concessions are granted. It ismore so necessary in the case of development of mines because the number ofareas in which help and assistance of the State Governments is required byminers are many. The suggested statutory changes as a solution to the problemof delays may not be conductive to the harmonious relations and for the help264
and support that the mining companies require from the State Governments. Forthis reason also the recommended statutory change is not desirable.5.11 To the best of our knowledge, there is no other enactment of Parliamentwhich provides for such drastic provisions as suggested in the subjectrecommendations, namely if an statutory function is not discharged by a StateGovernment, the jurisdiction shall get transferred to the Central Government.We, therefore, do not support the proposed amendment in section 30 and Rule54 A.5.12 The time periods of 10 months and 13 months prescribed for LAPLs/PLsand MLs are wholly inadequate for deciding multiple application for directLAPL / PL and ML cases, which should at least be 18 months and 24 months,respectively.6. The recommendation involves the question of exercise of powers by theStates and the Central Government and is, therefore, sensitive from the viewpoint of the Centre-State relations too. A recommendation touching the sensitivearea of jurisdiction of the States and the Centre needs to be perhaps deliberatedfor a consensus at an appropriate political forum where both the Centre and theStates are represented, particularly in view of the fact that the states are theowners of minerals and the actual work is to be done under the supervision ofStates.Recommended solution to the problem of delays: -7.1 In view of the aforesaid, and in the absence of a foolproof legal remedy,we hold the view that a solution to the problem of delays in disposal of mineralconcession applications would be to put in place appropriate administrativecoordination mechanisms including setting up of joint committees at the level ofthe States, comprising the representatives of the Central and the StateGovernments to monitor the disposal position on a regular basis and provideguidance for improvement. For this purpose, a Central Monitoring Committeechaired by the Union Mines Secretary could also be set up to reviewperiodically the status of the disposal of such applications for directions. Settingup of a National Council presided over by the Union Mines Minister could alsobe considered. Such administrative mechanisms can certainly take care of theissues relating to delays.7.2 Further, the suggestions contained in paras 2.19 and 2.20 of the reportneed to be further deliberated by a Joint Group of the Centre and the States forarriving at a consensus solution to the problem.265
- 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 272 and 273: the Central Government to entertain
- 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
and support that the mining companies require from the State Governments. Forthis reason also the recommended statutory change is not desirable.5.11 To the best <strong>of</strong> our knowledge, there is no other enactment <strong>of</strong> Parliamentwhich provides for such drastic provisions as suggested in the subjectrecommendations, namely if an statutory function is not discharged by a StateGovernment, the jurisdiction shall get transferred to the Central Government.We, therefore, do not support the proposed amendment in section 30 and Rule54 A.5.12 The time periods <strong>of</strong> 10 months and 13 months prescribed for LAPLs/PLsand MLs are wholly inadequate for deciding multiple application for directLAPL / PL and ML cases, which should at least be 18 months and 24 months,respectively.6. The recommendation involves the question <strong>of</strong> exercise <strong>of</strong> powers by theStates and the Central Government and is, therefore, sensitive from the viewpoint <strong>of</strong> the Centre-State relations too. A recommendation touching the sensitivearea <strong>of</strong> jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the States and the Centre needs to be perhaps deliberatedfor a consensus at an appropriate political forum where both the Centre and theStates are represented, particularly in view <strong>of</strong> the fact that the states are theowners <strong>of</strong> minerals and the actual work is to be done under the supervision <strong>of</strong>States.Recommended solution to the problem <strong>of</strong> delays: -7.1 In view <strong>of</strong> the aforesaid, and in the absence <strong>of</strong> a foolpro<strong>of</strong> legal remedy,we hold the view that a solution to the problem <strong>of</strong> delays in disposal <strong>of</strong> mineralconcession applications would be to put in place appropriate administrativecoordination mechanisms including setting up <strong>of</strong> joint committees at the level <strong>of</strong>the States, comprising the representatives <strong>of</strong> the Central and the StateGovernments to monitor the disposal position on a regular basis and provideguidance for improvement. For this purpose, a Central Monitoring Committeechaired by the Union <strong>Mines</strong> Secretary could also be set up to reviewperiodically the status <strong>of</strong> the disposal <strong>of</strong> such applications for directions. Settingup <strong>of</strong> a <strong>National</strong> Council presided over by the Union <strong>Mines</strong> Minister could alsobe considered. Such administrative mechanisms can certainly take care <strong>of</strong> theissues relating to delays.7.2 Further, the suggestions contained in paras 2.19 and 2.20 <strong>of</strong> the reportneed to be further deliberated by a Joint Group <strong>of</strong> the Centre and the States forarriving at a consensus solution to the problem.265
Change language