In theconcluding paragraph of a five page note prepared by the mines department,there is a proposal to reply to the Indian Bureau of Mines telling themt thathas failed as a regulatory body. The Goan publishes the note in its entirety
Hon’ble Chief Minister may kindly pursuereferences received from Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines. The letterpurportedly has been writing offering comments on Draft Mining Policy of Goa,but in the garb of commenting IBM is indirectly issuing directives to the StateGovernment in areas which are the exclusive domain of the State Government.
The letter written in question talk ofrequest made by them seeking details of ownership of the dumps. The draftpolicy published by us contains adequate provision about identification ofdumps including matching each dump with a lease, location of each dump map andgeo referencing. Since the whole exercise of identification would needassistance from expert of agencies it is not possible to immediately makeavailable the information sought by the IBM. It is indeed surprising that IBMafter decades has woken up to the reality of dumps and is now looking forprovision to regulate handling of dumps. At best their efforts is too littleand too late. It is nothing, but what Government of Goa has very boldly decidedto do in order to promote sustainable mining in the State.
As regard observation about collection ofroyalty from dumps, the State Government is fully aware of provision in miningunder Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and MineralConservation and Development Rules, 1988 and we do not need direction from IBMin discharging our obligation.
The suggestion in Para 4 of the letterabout classification of dumps into two categories namely : (i) dumps withinmining lease area and (ii) dumps outside the mining lease area does not suitour requirements; many leaseholders in the past happily dumped overburden inforest land without obtaining any permission and therefore they have to beseparately treated.Similarly, we have dumps located in revenue land owned bythe Government without any permission from the revenue authority. Dumping ofoverburden in Government property has to be handed differently than dumping thesme within the lease area or in private land, acquired for this purpose.
The letter in question has merely been sentto direct the State Government to seek prior approval from the CentralGovernment before finalising the Dump Handling Policy and till that is obtaindo not allow any dump handling in the state. The suggestions/directives issuedare way beyond the powers vested in IBM for regulating mines.
The State Mining Policy is a visiondocument which reflects the Policy of the State and it does not require anyapproval from any other agency. In any case, we have sought suggestion and weare committed to accommodate all relevant advices and comments while finalisingthe draft. However, under no circumstances it is mandatory to seek priorapproval of the Central Government.
Further, handling of dumps, does notrequire any fresh clearance or approval from Central Government as is beingclaimed by IBM; mining plan approved bythe IBM itself provides for storage and is incumbent on IBM to check whetherthe conditions of overburden and condition for the same imposed by them arebeing compiled or not.
Once a lease holder has obtained permissionto work a mine the permission of handling the overburden is assumed. The MMDRAct or rules made there under do not provided for any separate permission fromthe Central Government infact one of the conditions which has now being imposedby the iBM and also in the endorsed Environmental Clearance is of Zero WasteMining which presupposes selling of marketable quantity of dumps and using restof the overburden for purpose of back filling. Since, most leases have a longspan 20 to 40 years, in some cases may go beyond that and the reclamationeffort is not a simultaneous process under the law therefore lease holder tendto hold overburden for future use. The overburden is a product of extractionand the whole process is fully covered under the mining plan and otherclearances granted to work a mine and it would amount to harassment if IBMwants State Government or lease holder to seek fresh permission in this regard.
Recently, we had also received a referencefrom Ministry of Environment asking us about not allowing dump handling withoutobtaining fresh Environmental Clearance. Based on the advice, we have receivedfrom Solicitor General of India we have sent a reply to the Ministry that nofresh Environmental Clearance is required for dump handling and this is fullycovered under the Environmental Clearance granted for purpose of mining.
State Mining Policy does not impose anycondition of registering dumps besides removal had any point of identification,assessment of quantity and quality and regulating the handling so that itconforms to physical infrastructure available with the State and at the sametime it also does not comprise the ecology and environment. It is for thesereasons, the policy suggests capping of mining including capping of dumphandling. Further we cannot allow gross illegality committed in the past bydumping overburden in Government or forest land and hence taking action againstsuch irregularities does not require any permission from outside agency.
It is a matter of surprise that till datewe do not have any information about IBM about level of compliance of thecondition imposed in Mining Plan or carrying out audit vis a vis mining plan orEnvironmental Clearance by any of the State Governmental agencies. It is onlywhen the State Government has suo moto taken upon itself the onerous task oflooking into compliance of conditions which central agencies have failed, theyare coming up with directive in the garb of exercising their regulatoryjurisdiction. The department had already started the exercise of auditingfinancial/sale transaction and also picked up cases to see the level ofcompliance with a view to initiate sou moto action against lease holders forcarrying out unauthorised mining violating basic conditions under which therewere to work a mine. In fact, while doing so, we should also hold CentralAgency responsible for dereliction of duty and take steps that they to sufferthe same consequence as one mine owner/lease holder faces for acting againstthe law of the land.
If agreed we may send formal reply to IBMresponding to their suggestion and at the same time making it clear to themthat the directives issued by them are not legally tenable and they havetotally failed in discharging their regulatory function forcing the StateGovernment to step in to protect its resources and promote sustainableexploitation in an ecological manner.
