 "Odisha rejects suggestion for CBI probe into mining scam")
“It is not a fact that the CBI alone has the expertise to investigate the cases relating to mining scam and/or violation of forest, environment pollution control law and Arms Act. There is no constraint for the vigilance department owing to shortage of logistics or expertise”, the state government said in its action taken report (ATR) on the recommendations of the Shah Commission.
The government informed that six public interest litigations (PILs) were filed in the Odisha High Court (HC) including petition for transfer of mines cases to the CBI. Since the matter for transfer of mining cases to CBI is under consideration of the HC, there is no justification for transfer of the mining cases to CBI.
Also Read
Nine criminal cases have been registered against various government officers and others who have been accused of being involved in illegal mining activities.
The state government has submitted charge sheets in appropriate courts and departmental proceedings have been initiated against erring government officials.
The Shah Commission, in its report on illegal mining in Odisha, had suggested a CBI probe into illegal mining, pointing out that the state vigilance wold not be in a position to conduct an independent and impartial equiry to arrive at just and proper finding because of pressure from the politicians.
The state government has also refuted the probe panel's claim that there was collapse of government machinery leading to steep increase in illegal mining and trade.
The state government, in its ATR said, three cases were registered during March 2010 based on the information on deputy director of mines, Joda, who found suspicious rake loads of iron ore being despatched to various destinations. Though the cases were registered against unknown persons, the police acted promptly and arrested the accused. Huge quantities of iron ore were seized.
On mining leases operating without environment clearance, the state ATR said, “The Union ministry of environment & forests (MoEF) had initially allowed the defaulting units to apply for post facto approval of environment clearance.
However, subsequently, it was decided by the MoEF to grant environment clearance (EC) prospectively and to take legal action against defaulting units for the period of violation. Accordingly, prosecution has been initiated in respect of cases of violation under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act.”
The Shah Commission, quoting an order of the Supreme Court, held that mining operations without environment clearance is illegal and is required to be stopped immediately.
In its report, the Shah commission stated that 96 mining leases had delayed ECs while 94 were operating without EC.
Defending its action to contain mining beyond approved limits, the state government said it has invoked provisions of Section 21 (5) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) MMDR Act, 1957 wherein production has been done without EC and demand raised in such cases.
Prosecution cases have been filed in case of 135 iron ore and manganese mines which functioned without ECs and those who extracted ore beyond the limits approved under the EC.