Date | Dec 05, 2016:
The High Court has quashed Rule 8(1) of the Minerals (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016, pertaining to the limitation it imposes on ‘minerals not specified in the First Schedule of the Act’. The court said it was ultra vires to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. It has also quashed the orders of the Commerce and Industries department that had rejected the applications of two parties which had applied for mining licence. It has also directed that their applications for mining lease be considered within four weeks.
A batch of three petitions by AV Shakuntala and Ms Bharathkumar P Bora, who had applied for mining licence, came up before the HC. They challenged the amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act, particularly Section 10A that was inserted in 2015. Also, the constitutional validity of Rule 8(1) of the Minerals Concession Rules was challenged. Two of the petitions by Shakuntala were about grant of mining licence for iron ore over 705 acres in Siddapura village of Sandur, Ballari. The senior geologist had recommended the application back in 2000. In 2007, the Conservator of Forests, Ballari, recorded that the diversion of forest could be considered favourably but sought clearance from competent authority. The Union Minister of Environment gave its clearance in 2008. However, in January 2016, Shakuntala’s application was termed ineligible as she had not been granted prior approval by the central government as per Section 10A of the Act, which was inserted in 2015. The application was considered again but rejected by the state government. In another case, Bharatkumar P Bora had applied for iron ore mining licence in Aihole village to an extent of 109 acres. Since 2014, various government agencies recommended the licence. In 2014, the recommendation for grant of mining licence that was given in 2012 was withdrawn by the state government. The HC in its judgment said that Section 10A came into force on January 12, 2015 and the applicants for mining licence done before that get a benefit till January 11, 2017. If the authorities “do not act with a sense of urgency and consider the cases of the petitioners,” the valuable rights of the applicants would be lost, the court said.
In the case of Shakuntala, she had complied with all conditions except obtaining forest clearance. She had applied for forest clearance in 2006 and it was recorded that it could be considered as far back as 2007. The court said that it is conscious that inaction by the state authorities was leading to the rights of the applicants under the amendment of the MMDR Act becoming futile.
(Source: http://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/)