With the Central Government sending back the proposal for granting a Prospecting licence (Pl) for the Khandadhar iron ore mines to Posco, it seems the South Korean steel company will have to wait a bit longer.
Notably, the State Government had forwarded the Pl proposal for a mine over an area of 2,500 hectares at villages of Kensara, Bhatuda, Rantha, Batagaon, Sareikela, lusi and Raisuan under Bonai sub-division of Sundargarh district to the Union Ministry of Mines (MoM) on January 10. The MoM, after going through the recommendations of the State Government, returned it raising a number of queries, which need to be clarified by the State.
In the first place, the Union Government has raised objections over sending a combined proposal for both notified and non-notified areas for mining under Sections 11(3) and 11(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957. The MoM has said the application for notified and non-notified areas under Sections 11(3) and 11(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 cannot be sent together since the applications for notified area under Section 11 (3) are deemed to have been received on the same day while Section 11(5) is applicable is received for an applicant, who comes later.
It has asked for notifications for starting and closing dates for receiving the application of the notification as it has not been mentioned in the proposal.
The Ministry has said Section 11(3) of the Act is for evaluation of capability and inter-se merits of the applicants with respect to special knowledge and experience in reconnaissance operations, prospecting operations or mining operations, financial resources of the applicant, nature and quality of the technical staff employed, investment proposed in mines and industry.
Section 11(5) envisages, ‘Special Conditions’ for evaluation of Public Interest and for economic development with respect to exhaustion of captive capacity, special technology, ownership of the land of the recommended area, adjoining area for mining in the interest of scientific and systematic mining and reduction in barrier loss, the Ministry has pointed out. While evaluating the case, the requirement of law under Section 11(3) was given due consideration by the State Government; however, the case was not evaluated for fulfilling the requirement of Section 11(5), said the Ministry.
Secondly, Posco signed a five-year MoU with the State Government on June 22, 2005, which has already expired. The fate of the MoU is not clear, and the current status of the investment by Poaco is not reflected in the proposal. While the MoU is not yet renewed and the State Government is still reviewing the matter, the Ministry of Mines has raised a query in this regard and wants a clear-cut reply, said official sources. The Ministry has also raised queries over several other issues and returned the proposal.