"If dumping of tailings or sub-grade material or waste material is there in some areas outside the boundaries of the mine lease as specified in the lease deed, the problem can be easily sorted by modifying the lease boundaries as defined in the lease deed to include the dump area also," said Union Mines Minister Narendra Singh Tomar in a letter to Goa Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar.
"This will only require a rectification deed to be registered under the relevant rules," added the minister. Parsekar had requested Tomar to incorporate provisions for dumping mineral waste outside the leasehold areas in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) to supersede a last year's Supreme Court judgment.
The central government passed the amendment to the Act, in March this year, without incorporating the provisions requested by the chief minister. As a result, Parsekar again wrote a letter on May 6, 2015.
While lifting the ban on Goa mining last year, the apex court had refused to permit the mining companies to dump their waste outside the leased area, as it violated various mining and environment rules prescribed as per the law.
Discarding such waste outside of the mining area has been a common practice in Goa, as the lease holding area given to the miner is of small size (not more than 100 hectares in general).
However, the during the peak period of mining (2007-12), it was observed that such wastes were also sold to countries like China without any permission or royalty being levied on it. As a result, the court decided to end this practice.
According to Goa miners who have made several presentations to the government, it would be very difficult to restart mining in the state, particularly at a time when market prices of Goa's iron-ore (58 per cent Fe or below) have fallen to $45-50 per tonne.
"By incorporating provisions for dumping outside of leasehold areas, the operational and logistical difficulties faced by leaseholders in scientific and efficient extraction of ore, especially in smaller leased areas…would have been resolved by lawfully addressing any perceived conflict between extant situation and the SC judgment dated April 21, 2014," said Parsekar to Tomar in his letter dated May 6, 2015.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
)