National Mineral Policy 2006 - Department of Mines

to give priority to the prior applicant. As already stated, MLs should not be given withoutdetailed prospecting data delineating the ore body to be mined. This is possible only fromdata gathered by a LAPL or PL holder (other than data prospected by a public agency atpublic expense). In rare situations where such data has become available from a credibleprivate prospecting source, such as areas prospected fully by an ex-LAPL/PL holder but notfollowed up with an ML application and where both the PL and lock-in period have expiredor where non-promotional work has been done by MECL or any state PSU for a client,prioritisation can be considered as per Section 11(2) of the Act. The preference should be, ofcourse, to put such ore bodies into the public domain and auction them (subject to theexceptions mentioned in Chapter 5) rather than dispose of them directly.1.66 As regards Section 11(3), the Committee has stated earlier that details of all areasshould be made available on an open website to be maintained by IBM. This website shouldgive details of areas currently held under a concession, areas being explored by GSI or otherstate agencies at public expense, and areas available for exploration, including relinquishedareas. This will make the notifications under Sections 11(2) and 11(4) of the Act and Rule59(2) of the MCR 1960 redundant. It should be the responsibility of the state governments todispose of any application received for a concession in a time-bound manner. Regardless ofwhether a single application or multiple applications are received the application/s should bedisposed of on the basis of Section 11(3), which provides the criteria to be considered.However, it is necessary that these criteria should be elaborated in detail in the MCR itself,thus minimising the scope for subjective interpretations. For example, the kind of geologicalinformation required relevant to each type of concession should be spelt out. So too shouldthe level of technical capabilities, finance, investment in downstream industry, etc. be laiddown in detail in the MCR itself.1.67 The Committee finds that the discretionary provision under Section 11(5) of theMMDR Act is not in line with the international practice. The provision creates apprehensionsin the minds of genuine investors and serves no useful purpose. To provide uniformity andtransparency in the criteria used and to prevent any abuse of discretionary powers in the grantof mineral concessions, the following measures are recommended:(i)Section 11(1) may be modified so that a non-exclusive RP holder has the right toobtain a PL on first-come-first-served basis rather than ‘a preferential right’. A44