The Orissa government has hit back at the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) yet again over the issue of excess production of ore after the Union mines ministry recently blamed the state for its failure to curb movement of such illegally mined ore.
“Under Mineral Concession and Development (MCDR) Rules-1988, it is the IBM's responsibility to prepare Mining Plan and ensure that is followed by the lessees. IBM has lapsed in its responsibility. The state government will examine the letter of the Union mines secretary and file its response”, said state minister for industries and steel & mines Raghunath Mohanty.
The Union mines secretary, Vishwapati Trivedi, in a letter to the state Chief Secretary B K Patnaik yesterday, had blamed the state government for the failure of its machinery to curb movement of illegally mined ore.
"An analysis of production and violations in 104 mining leases for bulk minerals in Orissa in the last 10 years as reported by the Orissa government was undertaken by the IBM. In 71 cases, it has found excess ore produced beyond reasonable variation limits (20 per cent deviation from mining plan). Instances of excess production are attributed critically to failure by the state machinery to restrict movement of minerals from the mining leases due to inadequate co-relation with the production figures in the approved mining plan. The powers of restriction on mineral movement lie exclusively with the state governments as the sole statutory authority to collect royalty and authorize movements”, Trivedi said.
Defending the IBM on the matter, he said, in most of the cases, IBM has diligently reviewed the mining scheme and after proper field inspections, has approved scheme of mining for subsequent mining.
However, this does not preclude the state government to use the information on excess production to initiate action under the provisions of Rule 27 (1) (u) of Mineral Concession Rules (MCR)-1960 and also in respect of non-compliance of provisions of MCDR Rules-1988.
More From This Section
The Union mines secretary has held that the state directorate of mining and geology has a clear mandate to undertake on site inspection of the mineral mined out for assessing quantum and quality under Section 24 (1) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act-1957, particularly essential for proper assessment of royalty payable.
Further, the state government has sufficient powers flowing out of the provisions of Rule 27 (1) (i) and (j) of MCR-1960 which allows the state government officers to examine the accounts, plans and records maintained by the lessee on minerals obtained and despatched as well as on the trenches, pits and drillings made by the lessee.
Combined with these powers, the state government has exclusive powers to restrict the issue of transit permit (required for authorizing movement of every truck load of mineral) rather than relying solely on the IBM to identify the cases of overproduction at mine level on daily basis, Trivedi said.