Odisha is set to voice its opposition to some of the contentious provisions in the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Bill-2011 that the state government feels may undermine the federal structure of the constitution.
In May this year, Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik had shot off a letter to Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh complaining that the MMDR Bill sought to transfer certain powers and functions now being exercised by states to the Centre.
The same concerns are likely to be raised by the state team led by its new steel & mines secretary Rajesh Verma at a meeting to be held in New Delhi on Friday. The meeting is being convened by the Standing Committee on coal & steel of the Lok Sabha to examine possible modifications in MMDR Bill-2011. Various mineral bearing states have been invited to air their views and reservations on the MMDR Bill in its current form.
“The state government’s concerns over some objectionable clauses in the MMDR Bill will be raised at the meeting. Besides, we will reiterate our earlier demands of value addition of ores within the state, introduction of competitive bidding for finite mineral resources and hike in royalty rates of key minerals like iron ore and chrome ore,” said a top official source. Deepak Mohanty, director (mines) who will attend the meeting said, “This meeting is being called to discuss possible modifications in some clauses in MMDR Bill.”
But he refused to share details, stating, “It would be premature to disclose anything before the meet ends.”
In his letter, the Odisha chief minister had urged the Prime Minister to have a re-look at various provisions of the Bill and modify them to ensure that the federal structure is not violated.
Patnaik had pointed out that the Bill has some provisions that were not present in the MMDR Act-1957. One such provision, which has peeved the state government, is the power given to Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) under Union ministry of mines to supervise functions of the state government.
This provision says that if illegal or unscientific mining is going on in any state, then IBM or such authority would make a report to this effect to the Centre and the Centre may issue such direction as it may consider necessary to the state government. In case of non-compliance on these directions by state, the Centre can direct IBM or such authority to file written complaint for investigation and prosecution of offences, revocation of mineral concessions and any other measures as may be deemed fit in the circumstances.
The state government has also taken exception to vesting judicial and investigative functions in the National Regulatory Authority proposed under Section 58 (1) of the Bill.
While establishment of the National Regulatory Authority to perform advisory and recommendatory functions is welcome, creating a superior body with investigative and judicial functions to entertain complaints, give directions to the state governments, initiate investigation and lodge prosecution encroaches upon the domain of the state government, is not in keeping with the federal structure envisaged in the constitution, the state government felt.
