After a prolonged period of unauthorised and illegal extraction of minerals, there were bound to be certain dislocations in the changeover to a legally legitimate regime. The State Government has felt the fall of earnings from the mineral sector.
Eminent industrial houses have tried to project that they have been driven to purchasing raw materials from the market, implying thereby that they could not meet their requirements from what had over decades been their captive sources. The closure of the mines in different cases was occasioned by illegalities in the hitherto ongoing operations. From a wholly illegal operational made, there is an effort to change over to a legally legitimate arrangement.
This cannot be caused overnight. Both the Government and the industries have to blame themselves for having collaborated to perpetrate illegalities at the cost of safety, environment, regulatory measures and the like. This is not a bald conclusion. Sample instances from out of the 178-page report (final) of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to the Supreme Court would demonstrate the malady. The CEC report has made a detailed evaluation of the latest situation. The macro-study of the CEC reveals:
“There are 187 iron ore and/or manganese ore mining leases in the State of Odisha. It is seen from the details that out of 187 mining leases 33 leases are subsisting leases comprising 17 working leases and 16 nonworking leases. As many as 32 leases have been rejected /determined / lapsed / application for renewal not filed.
The status of the renewal of the mining leases in respect of remaining122 leases is as under: (i) 16 leases which have all the statutory approvals except the renewal of the mining lease (1st renewal) under the MMDR Act, 1957 are working under the deemed renewal clause as provided under Rule 24 A (6), MCR, 1960. In each of these cases the application for the renewal of the mining lease has been filed by the respective lessee within the stipulated time. The applications for the renewal of the mining leases are pending with the State Government for periods varying from 19 years to 21 months; (ii) 8 leases under second and subsequent renewal have all the statutory approvals except the renewal of the mining lease under the MMDR Act, 1957.
Express Order under Section 8 (3) of the MMDR Act, 1957 in respect of these 8 mining leases have been issued by the State Government and the mining leases are presently operating. The period for which renewal applications are pending with the State Government varies between 29 years to 9 years; (iii) 45 leases have applied for first renewal of the mining lease within the prescribed time and the applications are pending with the State Government for a decision. These are non-working mining leases as none of them have all the statutory approvals. The period for which the renewal applications are pending with the State Government varies from 20 years to 2 years; (iv) 53 mining leases have applied for second and subsequent renewal and the renewal applications are pending for a decision with the State Government. These leases are not eligible to operate till a decision for the renewal of the mining leases is taken by the State Government and they obtain all the statutory approvals. This Hon’ble Court has held that Rule 24 A(6), MCR, 1960 is not applicable in respect of the mining leases under second and subsequent renewal. The renewal applications are pending with the State Government for a decision for periods varying between 41 years to 4 years.
“It is seen from the above that there has been substantial delay on the part of the State Government in taking a decision for the renewal of the mining leases. During such periods the mining leases continued to operate under Rule 24 A (6), MCR, 1960. This Hon’ble Court by order dated 16.5.2014 has held that Rule 24 A (6), MCR, 1960 is not applicable in respect of the mining leases under second and subsequent renewal. Thereafter all the mining leases under second and subsequent renewal and operating under the above Rule have been stopped except 8 mining leases. Subsequent to the above order dated 16.5.2014 of this Hon’ble Court the State Government in the case of these 8 leases, issued Express Orders under Section 8 (3) of the MMDR Act, 1957.
“In addition the Rule 24 A (6), MCR, 1960 has been amended vide Notification dated 18th July, 2014 issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India, and which provides that (a) pending 1st renewal, the mining leases can continue to operate under this Rule for a maximum period of 2 years after the expiry of the sanctioned lease period, (b) the mining leases for which the 1st renewal had earlier become due can continue to operate under this Rule for the next two years and
(c) no mining lease under second and subsequent renewal can continue to operate under this Rule. The amended Rule effectively means that unless a decision for the renewal of the mining lease is taken by the State Government and the renewal lease deed is executed before the expiry of the sanctioned lease period the mining operations in such mining lease will have to be stopped except when the mining lease is under first renewal and which may continue to operate for a maximum period of next two years. The earlier practice of keeping the decisions regarding the renewal of the mining leases pending for decades and continuing of mining operations in the mining leases during such periods is no more permissible.
“The CEC, in the above background, is of the view that it is essential that the State Government ensure that a timely decision regarding the first renewal of the mining leases are taken. For the mining leases already under the first renewal such decisions are required to be taken within a maximum period of next one year or so to ensure that the mining lease (first renewal) deeds are executed before 18th July, 2016.
Similarly in respect of the mining leases which become due for first renewal in future the State Government needs to ensure that a timely decision regarding their renewal is taken and mining lease (first renewal) deeds are executed well before the expiry of two years of period provided in the amended Rule 24 A (6), MCR, 1960. The CEC is also of the view that the State Government should come out with a clear policy regarding the second and subsequent renewal of the mining leases and after inter alia taking into consideration extent of the illegal mining and the violations of Rule 37, MCR, 1960 by the respective lessee. The State Government should consider each individual case of the renewal of the mining lease strictly in accordance with the policy decision.”
This demonstrates that mal-governance and patronage to illegality led to the prevalent awkward situation in the mining industry in Odisha. It is common knowledge that several laws are involved in preventing a mining lease and in the carrying out of mining operations on the basis of the concerned lease. But there appears to have been apparent and deliberate inaction and apathy. This has led to the improper and illegal benefit in favour of the mine owners. As the courts have come down heavily, there is now some visible action on the part of the State Government to put the entire scheme of things within a legally valid framework. But in the process, over the last two decades, massive plunder of resources took place contrary to the interest of the society at large and dominantly leading to the unjust enrichment of the concerned parties.
The State was a silent participant in this process of plunder. Any awakening on the part of the Government has to be conditioned by the pressure of public opinion through the voice of activists. Organised constructive suggestions from the public as stakeholders have to be articulated through appropriate deliberations and pursuant assertions of competent representatives.
This requires coordinated activity in the public domain. Mining is a matter concerning inter-generation equity and sustainable growth. The youth, therefore, have a dominant role in the public actions for ensuring the necessary restructuring and orientation in the governance of the mining field. A synergy of participatory and effective voice from the interested public is the need of the hour. And this concerns us all.
(The writer, a Senior Advocate, is a former All India Service officer, a former diplomat, a former editor, a former President of Orissa High Court Bar Association and a former Advocate General of Odisha. jayantdas@hotmail.com)