There appears to be a designed protraction of the maladies with a concurrent multiplicity of studies by different agencies over almost a decade-long maladministration in a vital sector of nonrenewable resources like minerals. On a petition, filed by senior journalist Rabi Das, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was called upon to undertake a study of the allegations levelled in the petition and report back to the Supreme Court. Unbelievable findings emerged in the proceedings before the CEC.
It was apparent from the report of the CEC that through sheer non-exercise of power and resultant inaction, hundreds of mines were operating without mandatory statutory clearances relating to a vital sector affecting the environment. It was strange to find a Secretary to the State Government submitting before the CEC that the State Government understood the “deeming” provision of Rule 24-A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 to be a blanket sanction for continuing illegal operation of mines beyond the tenure of any lease, etc.
The illegalities ranged from mining, adversely affecting environment, from forest to carrying capacity, from sustainable extraction to rampant illegal extraction and trading of minerals when there was a boom in the international market. The tolerant society of Odisha did not view this as a plunder of the nonrenewable natural resources with scant regard to intergeneration equity.
The State Government promptly assured the Supreme Court that except some minor matters, the Government accepts the CEC report and would take early steps for necessary remedial measures. This dilatory strategy permitted the operators within the Government to gain some time. Notwithstanding the projected window-dressings, nothing substantial really happened in the mining sector in furtherance of the interest of the State and the country.
At this stage, the Government of India appointed the Justice Shah Commission. Justice Shah produced a voluminous report relating to the Odisha mining matters and there was sufficient material available to the Governments (both Central and State) to proceed on the basis of this report. But parallel actions had to be continued, probably for collateral purposes. The CEC suddenly held a meeting with some mine operators and, without hearing the other concerned parties, recommended reduction of the compensatory payments and the penal amounts that could reasonably be imposed on them.
Meanwhile, the CAG had done his homework and, through sample studies, established illegal overexploitation, loss of revenue, threat to intergeneration equity and loss of resources/revenue to the Government. It was now easy to play the cards in such a way that time could be gained to plunder a little further. Thus, one sees a scenario of halfhearted prosecution, non-maintainable court actions and designedly defective show-cause notices, involving hundreds of crores of rupees. Rule 24-A(6) of the MC Rules did not come to the rescue of the smaller operators, but the most dominant ones continued to enjoy this illegal privilege till the Supreme Court in May directed that Rule 24-A(6) of MC Rules cannot have any application to any renewal subsequent to the first one.
It may be noted that Justice Shah has suggested a one-year maximum “deeming” provision. Section 8 of the MMDR Act had been amended, conferring the power for second and subsequent renewals in the interest of “mineral development” on the State Governments. The initial grant of the First Schedule minerals could only be with the prior approval of the Central Government. The policy relating to minerals has to be conditioned by a national policy.
In that context, delegating the power exclusively to the State Governments with a fringe consultation with the IBM, etc., is an incongruous and incompatible situation of leaving renewals to the State Governments alone. The implementation of such provisions of law has led to non-adherence to the objects of “mineral development” and has encouraged committees of the State Government to recommend “in-principle” approvals. The norms in this regard continue to be manipulatively vague in the hands of all the limbs of the State. The overall scenario, as facts reveal, has not led to an organised and planned mineral development but has enabled manipulated favouritism and illegal patronage.
In this buck-passing scenario, it is imperative that the Central Government formulates objective growth-oriented policies of sustainable development causing necessary changes in the laws. The amendments to the MMDR Act have been successfully thwarted through different vested interests operating in the world of democracy. The Government has to wake up to this national necessity. The Government is a “trustee” of such national wealth. If the agencies of the Government do not carry out their bounden duties in the interest of all, it is time that citizens start acting in a collective manner so as to cause the necessary changes in the context of a legislation that desperately requires amendments to the MMDR Act.
We must not forget that national resources, as in minerals, etc., when not attended to by the authorities in the nations’ interest, intervention by the “real owner” (i.e. “We the people”) has to ensure suitable action to be taken through the Executive and the legislature. If this happens, the Supreme Court would then become an umpire in terms of maintaining Rule of law and would not be burdened to the extent of “administering” instead of “adjudicating”. If beyond this, the judiciary has to play a proactive role, it will be more resolute, meaningful and efficacious.
All the above requires a movement amongst alert citizens. Appropriate proposals have to be formulated, projected and assuredly implemented. If there was a pragmatic people’s action in this direction, all the agencies of the State can be pursued (or goaded) into purposive action. But before the storm brakes, there has to be an objective-oriented strategy leading on to a meaningful movement. But, alas, one hears a lot of motivated cacophony with a delusion of publicity-oriented actions. This requires radical remedial measures. 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)