)
In a bid to recover cost of excess mining from the lessees, the state steel & mines department has initiated the process of hearing of mine owners.
"The hearing is underway at the DDM (deputy director of mines) level to recover cost of excess ore raised by the lessees. We had issued notices to the lessees that had extracted excess ore and now the final demand is going to be raised”, said steel & mines secretary Rajesh Verma.
The state steel & mines department had imposed a total penalty of Rs 65,492.73 crore on 104 errant lessees found guilty of extracting excess ore during 2001-10, a move contested by around 20 miners in the revision authority under Union mines ministry. The government had invoked Section 21 (5) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) MMDR Act-1957 for recovering cost of production.
The Society for Geoscientists & Allied Technologists (SGAT), a body dedicated to promotion of mineral development, had termed the penalty on excess mining 'unjustified'.
"As such demand raised on the lessees to pay the price of ore raised in excess of quantity approved in the mining plan, environment clearance and consent letter retrospectively is totally unjustified more so when permission had been accorded for despatch of such ores from the lease areas and royalty collected”, SGAT stated in a note submitted to the Shah Commission of enquiry probing into large scale mining of iron ore and manganese ore without lawful authority.
SGAT also held that ore production reported in a mining plan approved by Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) cannot be construed as illegal.
“Section 21 (5) of MMDR Act- 1957 is clearly applicable on such land which is occupied without lawful authority. It is clarified that in the context of Mines and Minerals Development & Regulation (MMDR) Act-1957, violations pertaining to mining operations within the mining lease area are to be dealt with only in terms of the provisions of Mineral Conservation & Development Rules (MCDR)-1988. However, the interpretation that a land granted under a mining lease by the state government can be held to be occupied without lawful authority on the grounds of provisions of any other law of the land is not appropriate and such interpretation may not stand in the court of law”, SGAT stated in the memorandum to the Shah Commission.
