Chhattisgarh has rich iron ore deposit. The state is the most sought after location for the steel manufacturers. With the unchecked rise of steel prices the steelmakers want mining leases in the state at any cost. This has provided a new opportunity for many – opportunity to make some quick money. Since the potential profit from mining leases is huge nobody grudges paying a share out of that to the facilitators. And there are many keen to facilitate when such benefits are plenty. Chhattisgarh is a case in point.
Thus there are a number of skeletons staring out of many a cupboard in the state. Take for instance the civil writ petition filed by the government owned Navratna mineral company against the government in the High Court of Delhi. Sounds curious? But the facts of the case are even more so. The dispute is over the grant of prospecting license for iron ore over an area of 2500 ha in Deposit No 1 of Bailadila Reserve Forest, Tehsil Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. The license was granted to the Tata Iron & Steel Company, the sixth largest steel maker in the world. And another petition again by NMDC against mining lease to Essar Steel.
The curious aspect of the whole grant of license is how NMDC, a state-owned corporate, was kept in the dark by the Government of India. The company which had been contesting for the mineral prospecting right of Bailadila Deposit No1 and had approached the Mines Tribunal against the state government of Chhattisgarh decision to grant license to the Tata Steel did not know that the Mines Ministry of the Government of India had sanctioned the deal. Interestingly NMDC had to file application under the Right to Information Act in May 2007 and obtain a copy of the Mines Ministry order dated 14th February 2007. NMDC filed an application before the Committee on Disputes for permission to challenge the government order of February 2007. When the permission was received NMDC moved the Delhi High Court.
Thus the government’s own company has moved court against the Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastry Bhawan, New Delhi and also the Government of Chhattisgarh, represented by its secretary Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Mineral Resources Department, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
While Tata Steel is a respondent in this particular case there is a very similar dispute between NMDC and another private steel maker Essar Steel. This is over deposit 3 in the state. NMDC had prospecting license and even mineral license for the mines. There was delay in starting the mine. Even the environment clearance for mining activity took time and came only in 2002. The lease was supposed to expire in 2007. Though NMDC applied for extension of the mining lease citing the reasons for delay the state government terminated the NMDC lease. Here also NMDC moved Delhi High Court.
The civil cases take years to settle. There always is an option for the litigants to move to higher court. In the existing case Tata has already obtained stay from the country’s Apex Court against the Delhi High Court judgment. Essar has adopted a delaying tactic – reportedly the company’s lawyers have been opting for postponement of hearing so as to buy time. Meanwhile the company has not even obtained environmental clearance for prospecting minerals. The mineral deposit in deposit 3 is spread over several clusters of small deposits. Essar has also not managed to acquire land. More important the company is at the receiving end of the Naxal attack. The employees had been attacked, some even lost their lives. Meanwhile the rich natural resources which could have been used for the nation’s development lie unused.
No wonder that the locals have little faith in the system. If there is covert and overt support for the Naxalites working in these areas the manipulations in the seat of power are the reasons. The locals know that mineral resources extracted from their habitat finally go for enriching some money bag. While the tribals figures in news when they die in large numbers, the money bags get their photographs splashed all over when they buy large mansions. If in order to set right the distributive balance armed Naxals attack and plunder the extractors, can we not call this an act of counterbalancing, an act which ideally the state should perform but has failed to deliver so far?
The Naxal attack on the Essar’s beneficiation facility in Chhattisgarh in April may be viewed thus. In the last week of April 2008, about 300 heavily-armed Maoists raided Essar Steel’s plant in the Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh, burning around 53 trucks and three heavy machines. According to the police, a large number of Naxalites swooped on the company site at Kirandool and set fire to the machines. The attack on Essar Steel's plant highlighted the strength of the Maoist rebels in the forested state, where many mining companies operate. The rebels overpowered a few employees working in the plant during the night shift and then sprayed diesel on vehicles and set ablaze at least 53 trucks. They left pamphlets at the attack site saying their act was to protest against the transportation of local natural resources, such as iron ore, outside the state and the country. Cynics might call this a problem of law and order winking at the fact that both law and order are violated with impunity while granting mining leases.
Take the case of deposit 1 for example. NMDC had applied for Prospecting License on 15th April 1991 for iron ore in Bailadila Deposit No1 over an area of 1130 ha. This fell within the area reserved for public sector undertaking in Bailadila range in Bastar district of the then state of Madhya Pradesh, now Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh. Since NMDC was the first applicant it had the preferential right under the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957 (MMDR 1957).
Further NMDC applied for permission for undertaking mineral exploration on June 30, 2002. The District Forest Officer conducted site inspection on 20th February 2003. Thereafter the Chief Conservator of Forests and Survey, Chhattisgarh forwarded NMDC application for permission to enter into the forest for exploration of mineral. While NMDC thus had been following up its application for prospecting license the Chhattisgarh government vide its letter dated November 10, 2006 recommended Prospecting License over an area of 2500 ha of this deposit to the Tata Iron & Steel. The government argued that Tata would construct a steel factory within the state of Chhattisgarh. This would create employment opportunity within the state of Chhattisgarh; therefore the preferential right vested in the Public Sector Enterprise NMDC under section 11(2) of MMDR Act 1957 was ignored.
The most curious aspect of the dispute is that while the Mines Ministry of the Government of India hurriedly accorded approval to the Chhattisgarh government recommendation the ministry waived the state government stipulation that the private sector company would have to set up a factory in the state. Thus the central Government cleared any hurdle that could have been there for the Tata Company to mine and trade the rich iron ore deposit of Bailadila.
The Navratna PSU contended that the acts of Chhattisgarh state government and the Central Government are malafide exercise of power to the detriment of public interest. The dispute illustrates the potential unholy nexus between the politicians and business while exploiting the nation’s natural resources. Take the Chhattisgarh government clearance of the private company’s proposal for example. Even NMDC had been pleading with the government in Raipur for approval to set up a steel factory on its own. The Union Steel Minister has said on record that NMDC had his permission to set up a steel manufacturing unit of 3 million tonne in
Thus there are a number of skeletons staring out of many a cupboard in the state. Take for instance the civil writ petition filed by the government owned Navratna mineral company against the government in the High Court of Delhi. Sounds curious? But the facts of the case are even more so. The dispute is over the grant of prospecting license for iron ore over an area of 2500 ha in Deposit No 1 of Bailadila Reserve Forest, Tehsil Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. The license was granted to the Tata Iron & Steel Company, the sixth largest steel maker in the world. And another petition again by NMDC against mining lease to Essar Steel.
The curious aspect of the whole grant of license is how NMDC, a state-owned corporate, was kept in the dark by the Government of India. The company which had been contesting for the mineral prospecting right of Bailadila Deposit No1 and had approached the Mines Tribunal against the state government of Chhattisgarh decision to grant license to the Tata Steel did not know that the Mines Ministry of the Government of India had sanctioned the deal. Interestingly NMDC had to file application under the Right to Information Act in May 2007 and obtain a copy of the Mines Ministry order dated 14th February 2007. NMDC filed an application before the Committee on Disputes for permission to challenge the government order of February 2007. When the permission was received NMDC moved the Delhi High Court.
Thus the government’s own company has moved court against the Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Shastry Bhawan, New Delhi and also the Government of Chhattisgarh, represented by its secretary Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Mineral Resources Department, Mantralaya, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
While Tata Steel is a respondent in this particular case there is a very similar dispute between NMDC and another private steel maker Essar Steel. This is over deposit 3 in the state. NMDC had prospecting license and even mineral license for the mines. There was delay in starting the mine. Even the environment clearance for mining activity took time and came only in 2002. The lease was supposed to expire in 2007. Though NMDC applied for extension of the mining lease citing the reasons for delay the state government terminated the NMDC lease. Here also NMDC moved Delhi High Court.
The civil cases take years to settle. There always is an option for the litigants to move to higher court. In the existing case Tata has already obtained stay from the country’s Apex Court against the Delhi High Court judgment. Essar has adopted a delaying tactic – reportedly the company’s lawyers have been opting for postponement of hearing so as to buy time. Meanwhile the company has not even obtained environmental clearance for prospecting minerals. The mineral deposit in deposit 3 is spread over several clusters of small deposits. Essar has also not managed to acquire land. More important the company is at the receiving end of the Naxal attack. The employees had been attacked, some even lost their lives. Meanwhile the rich natural resources which could have been used for the nation’s development lie unused.
No wonder that the locals have little faith in the system. If there is covert and overt support for the Naxalites working in these areas the manipulations in the seat of power are the reasons. The locals know that mineral resources extracted from their habitat finally go for enriching some money bag. While the tribals figures in news when they die in large numbers, the money bags get their photographs splashed all over when they buy large mansions. If in order to set right the distributive balance armed Naxals attack and plunder the extractors, can we not call this an act of counterbalancing, an act which ideally the state should perform but has failed to deliver so far?
The Naxal attack on the Essar’s beneficiation facility in Chhattisgarh in April may be viewed thus. In the last week of April 2008, about 300 heavily-armed Maoists raided Essar Steel’s plant in the Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh, burning around 53 trucks and three heavy machines. According to the police, a large number of Naxalites swooped on the company site at Kirandool and set fire to the machines. The attack on Essar Steel's plant highlighted the strength of the Maoist rebels in the forested state, where many mining companies operate. The rebels overpowered a few employees working in the plant during the night shift and then sprayed diesel on vehicles and set ablaze at least 53 trucks. They left pamphlets at the attack site saying their act was to protest against the transportation of local natural resources, such as iron ore, outside the state and the country. Cynics might call this a problem of law and order winking at the fact that both law and order are violated with impunity while granting mining leases.
Take the case of deposit 1 for example. NMDC had applied for Prospecting License on 15th April 1991 for iron ore in Bailadila Deposit No1 over an area of 1130 ha. This fell within the area reserved for public sector undertaking in Bailadila range in Bastar district of the then state of Madhya Pradesh, now Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh. Since NMDC was the first applicant it had the preferential right under the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act 1957 (MMDR 1957).
Further NMDC applied for permission for undertaking mineral exploration on June 30, 2002. The District Forest Officer conducted site inspection on 20th February 2003. Thereafter the Chief Conservator of Forests and Survey, Chhattisgarh forwarded NMDC application for permission to enter into the forest for exploration of mineral. While NMDC thus had been following up its application for prospecting license the Chhattisgarh government vide its letter dated November 10, 2006 recommended Prospecting License over an area of 2500 ha of this deposit to the Tata Iron & Steel. The government argued that Tata would construct a steel factory within the state of Chhattisgarh. This would create employment opportunity within the state of Chhattisgarh; therefore the preferential right vested in the Public Sector Enterprise NMDC under section 11(2) of MMDR Act 1957 was ignored.
The most curious aspect of the dispute is that while the Mines Ministry of the Government of India hurriedly accorded approval to the Chhattisgarh government recommendation the ministry waived the state government stipulation that the private sector company would have to set up a factory in the state. Thus the central Government cleared any hurdle that could have been there for the Tata Company to mine and trade the rich iron ore deposit of Bailadila.
The Navratna PSU contended that the acts of Chhattisgarh state government and the Central Government are malafide exercise of power to the detriment of public interest. The dispute illustrates the potential unholy nexus between the politicians and business while exploiting the nation’s natural resources. Take the Chhattisgarh government clearance of the private company’s proposal for example. Even NMDC had been pleading with the government in Raipur for approval to set up a steel factory on its own. The Union Steel Minister has said on record that NMDC had his permission to set up a steel manufacturing unit of 3 million tonne in
Next Story
