Former Chief Minister Babulal Marandi-led JVM has questioned the State Government for its decision of not challenging the Jharkhand High Court judgment given regarding mining lease renewal to Shah Brothers. The party while presenting a detailed letter of the Industry and Mines and Geology Department written to the Advocate General has alleged that the law officer did not present a correct picture before the Court which led to the unfavourable decision.
“The Additional Advocate General did not put forth the true facts before the court and did that without consulting the Department. This resulted into incorrect representation of the Department before the High Court who in its order stayed the decision of the Government for non renewal of lease given to Shah Brothers and taking possession of the land falling in leased area for mining,” said JVM general secretary Pradeep Yadav and alleged malafide intention behind the step of the Additional Advocate General Ajit Kumar. A letter written by then Additional Chief Secretary UP Singh to the Advocate General dated April 29, 2016 expressed his deep concern over the April 21, 2016 judgment of the High Court in the matter of M/s Shah Brothers Vs UOI and Ors in WPC number 2027.
“..The issues about which the Department is deeply concerned are as follows—learned AAG Mr Ajit Kumar appearing on behalf of the state has with all fairness submitted that after the pronouncement rendered by the Apex Court in Common Cause case on 04.04.2016 rejection of application for first renewal of the petitioner was wholly out of place. This stand is contrary to the stand of the department. The learned Advocate has neither consulted the department for proper brief about the facts nor sought any time from the Hon’ble Court to seek instruction from the department before making such averments…,” reads the letter of the Additional Chief Secretary.
Standing firmly behind the order issued by the Department in the matter of Shah Brothers on April 1, 2016 for denying extension of the lease ‘subject to the condition that all the terms and condition of the lease have been complied with’, UP Singh also pressed that Rs 1243.94 crore has to be recovered from the company on account of excess production of mineral beyond the prescribed environmental clearance limit of 39,24,529 tonnes between the period of 1994-95 to 2011-12 and baffled over not putting the facts before the Court.
The Additional Chief Secretary in his letter also rapped the law officer for wrongly presenting the Section 4-A(1) instead of Section 8-A(6) of the MMDR Act that deals with termination of prospecting license or mining lease.
“The Section 4-A states about premature termination of lease by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government in case of any natural calamity, prevention of pollution or to avoid danger to public health etc which was not the case here. Instead Section 8-A attracts the lease termination where mineral is used for other than captive purpose and in case any violation of the terms and conditions in place. This seems a deliberate attempt from the part of the Additional Advocate General and it should be found out under whose pressure he did so,” alleged Yadav.
Notably, iron ore lease on 233.89 hectare of Shah Brothers at Karampada of W Singhbhum was not given extension by the Department citing certain violations done on its part and the leased area was restored to the Government by making a gazette notification on April 8, 2016.
The company latter challenged it in the Court which stayed the order of the DC but no direction about the gazette notification was given.