The Orissa government is unlikely to comply with the norm of ‘first in time applicant’ for recommending prospecting license (PL) in case of non-notified mining lease areas.
“We would recommend PL to the Government of India only on merit. Considering applicants only on 'first in time' basis for the non-notified mining lease areas would mean recommending PL for a large number of applicants without taking into account the real merit of such applicants and also the interests of the state”, a top official source told Business Standard.
The state steel and mines department has already prepared its response to the draft guidelines on joint ventures (JVs) and MoUs (Memorandum of Understanding) issued in September this year by the Union ministry of mines. The response is currently under the scrutiny of the state Chief Secretary B K Patnaik and is expected to be sent soon to the ministry.
On signing of MoUs, the official said, “There has been no indiscriminate signing of MoUs by the state government. Wherever, MoUs have been signed, the interests of the state in general and the people to be displaced in particular have always been factored in.”
In its draft guidelines on Jvs/MoUs, the Union ministry of mines terms the signing of a large number of MoUs indiscriminately, and without considering what the other party is bringing to the table is not compatible with the use of the MoU as ‘special reasons’ for the purpose of Section 11 (5) of the MMDR Act.
An MoU for exploitation of a mineral resource at a specific location (i.e. specific lease area) in anticipation of a concession or a reservation will be deemed to be incompatible with principles of fair play and equity because it will give that MoU applicant an unfair advantage in relation to other MoU applicants who apply for the same area.
More From This Section
The ministry was of the view that it would contradict the policy of ‘first in time’ for non-notified areas or ‘most meritorious’ for notified areas, as the case may be, the Ministry of Mines had stated categorically in its guidelines.
In case MOU/JV is treated as special reasons, it is necessary to make its provisions enforceable, and as such the state government must send all details of the MOU/JV along with a proposal to make it relating to the MoUs/JVs in the context of their application in both reservation and concession cases.
It may be noted that while the above guidelines elaborate the process and procedures, they do not specify the policy and content of the MoUs since they have to be state specific.
In order to enable this to be done, it will be necessary for the states to issue a comprehensive circular and notify it, specifying the policy and content, and including therein the details of these guidelines in so far as procedures and consequences are concerned, subject to any variation that the state government may consider desirable.
“The state governments will also need to enter into supplementary MoUs with existing companies to enable the conditionalities to be fulfilled, and while doing so may ensure that the process of entering into supplementary MoUs filters out the routine that may have been entered into earlier. The list of all qualifying MoUs (including supplementary MoUs) may then be put up by the state government on its website”, the ministry had stated in its guidelines.