| A fresh dispute has erupted, further complicating the existing dispute between Steel Authority of India (SAIL) and and its wholly-owned subsidiary, IISCO, over lease of iron ore mines with the Jharkhand government.
|
| |
| The state government had questioned the right of SAIL to do iron ore mining in Singhbhum district.
|
| |
| To further complicate the issue, the tribal rights organisation, Kolhan Council, filed a writ in the High Court against grant of mining leases to non-tribal companies.
|
| |
| With this, the iron ore lease dispute would become a even more larger headache for SAIL as it favoured the state government action.
|
| |
| Some time ago, a show-cause notice had been served on Indian Iron & Steel Company (IISCO) and Sail by the district mining officer of Chaibasa for transfer of the control of iron ore leases at Gua and Chiria to SAIL.
|
| |
| The show cause notice said the steps taken by IISCO and SAIL regarding the mining lease was illegal and there it was not being permitted by the state government.
|
| |
| According to sources in SAIL, the reply to the show cause notice was sent to the district mining officer.
|
| |
| The reply stated that under the lease agreement, the lessee included the lease holder and also its successors, and hence the amalgamation of IISCO with SAIL made SAIL the owner of the mines, and this did not not violate any rule.
|
| |
| Meanwhile, the central minister of state for steel Akhilesh Das, in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha, recently said production at SAIL's Burnpur and Bokaro plants would be affected if the Jharkhand government terminated the company's mining lease.
|
| |
| The minister said after the amalgamation of IISCO with SAIL with effect from February 16, 2006, all the departments concerned in the Jharkhand government were informed of the development.
|
| |
| The newly-formed Kolhan Porahat Mankies Ad-hoc Committee recently file a writ before the Jharkhand High Court on the basis of the famous Samatha judgement that had upheld the rights of tribals to preserve the mineral wealth belonging to land under their occupation.
|
| |
| According to the Council president Shiv Charan Pareya, the Samatha judgement, delivered in the case Samatha Vs state of Andhra Pradesh on July 11, 1997, had stated that the grant of mining leased to non-tribal in the scheduled areas was violation of the Fifth Schedule under Article 244 of the Constitution.
|
| |
| Since Kolhan and Porahat division were under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, granting of mining lease to non-tribal was a violation of law, Pareya said.
|
| |
| He said in the scheduled areas, only tribals could stake claim over existing mineral wealth.
|
| |
| The Council said it had decided to form co-operatives to run the mines.
|
| |
| Companies interested in buying iron ore could buy it from the cooperatives.
|
| |
| The council recently sent a petition to the President of India pleading with him to pass an order for cancellation of existing lease and preventing grant of fresh mining leases to non-tribal and other companies in the schedule area of Kolhan and Porahat.
|
| |
| In the petition to the President of India, the council said that the Kolhan Government Estate representing the tribals existed in the Kolhan and Porahat divisions.
|
| |
| The Manki-Munda system of tribal administration along with President of India at the top hierarchy constituted Kolhan Government Estate.
|
| |
| The council claimed the land in Kolhan could not be transferred without the concurrence and consent of the Kolhan Estate and the Centre.
|
| |
| The state had no legal right and authority to transfer the mining belt of Chiria, Ghatkuri, Noamundi, Kiriburu and Gua to any other non-tribal entity or companies without the consent of Kolhan Government Estate. |
| |
|
| |
Content Guide
