Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PAC Report - 18 - Mining

    Uploaded by

    sdasorisa
    6 views15 pages
    PAC Report - 18 - mining

    Original Title

    PAC Report - 18 - mining

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    PAC Report - 18 - mining

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views15 pages

    PAC Report - 18 - Mining

    Uploaded by

    sdasorisa
    PAC Report - 18 - mining

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 15
    GY ite azit “Sexis as sought by the applicant. Moreaver it is evident from the noting, “Gf this Department that in similar such cases the delay in filing the “epplications have been condoned. Hence, if the Government is satisfied sth the reasons furnished for the delay it is well within the competence the State Government to condone the delay oF to reject the same if the tion ia not satisfhotory.| Henoo, we may mitcrate the carlicr on recorded in the matter, a sisal pote { Smt. Smita, Chandwani) Under Scoretary (Legal) & XS is further Notings 13/N onwards may kindly NypeRtied! Rule 24-A (10) campite be inserting to the M, Gysttiles, 1960 vide cation dated 27/9/94 ‘ind tha wane me follows. “After sy] pe Pliowinglsub ryt O%eynniPerke condone delay in a application for bbe inserteds- ] of MiniN ese mnade after the time limit prescribed in sub- abov@hguoted rule 24-A (10) came to be substituted vide jjecl 18/1/2000 which runs as under, ~ A State Government may condone clalay in an application for senewal of Mining Lease made after Hime limit prescribed in sub- (2) provided 1 i gre the ¢: “we peruse the above quoted rule, it 1s noted that the only change e to be inserted to sub-rule (10) of Rule 24-A of the Rules, 1960 ded the application has tech nidde before the expiry of the ‘These words came ta be insbrtad by the Central Government vide ation dated 18/1/2000, |In the prisent case the application for renewal was made by the party in queatler of 19/11/1996 and at yelavant time pre-tinended subsrule (10) af Rule 24-A of the Rules, was -very much in existence”. | In view of factual and legal position aa brought out dt pages t 22/N’the applicatior of the party in questlat ny be placed bef State Government for deciding the condonation of delay oh its me Af the Government is satisfied with the raasorie furnished for the de ‘well within the competence of the State Government to condone reject the application of the party, if the explanation jg not satisfe May like to see, © commontappligetion an ‘enewal of the Mining Lease Ge Buandy2' 82 is dated 19-11-1996, The amend 4960 came vide Aig) ofltna Mining Corleession Rules, glide B%4..72000 and hene@, the same eannot be applied to Bam npove application dated 19-11-1996. The (nw, as ft ston dite 4F the said application, provided that the State Gaver cdrdone delay in an application for renewal of Mining Lease Be he time limit preseribed in Sub-rute (1), 2. Notings from pages 13/N to 23/N of this Department be ig evident that similar applications were earlter allowed and ® condoned. The question Is not whether the delay is long oF jelay, nie whether there are reasons given for the o question plleation,|s satisfied. authorlty, who shall dectde the sald #P it is within the co mpetence of the State Gover 3. Hence, e same, depend to condone the delay or to reject th 24IN EY yt satisfaction of the reasons for delay. Therefore, the Government may like to decide, Ufaine A (WU. Ye Bakre) Law Secretary 1008 15-053 Ma ein Plow Hsus> wal at pg. 12/N is referring Shri Dayanand z. Neug4 under T.C, No. 59/51, ime = 4/195% and T,C, No, 21/1951 in Quepem Were due for renewal on per Department, However the renewal of above mining leases on 19/11/1996. i.e. after the due fe Attorney for all legal heirs of late zairam cations under his three separate ap; Fequested for renewal of mining leasés ec for above by considering the delay the applications. in contd, 25/N from Pre-page This. isate of condonation of delay has examined in consultation with legal Depart Their, views are at pg. 13/N to 24/N. The applications for renewal of leases made on 19/11/1996 i.e. after the due date but? pafora the amendment to Rule 24 (A) (10) of M.c. Rules, 1960. Prior to the out on 17/11/2000, Government condone the, delay, Since renewal of mining lease: amendment. 1 am of cannot be applicati my op: idhee of Rule 24(A) that the delay in submit: s was due to death of Late Shri: gi whe was the original leases, tér going through the advise given Department as regards the legal position for deli satisfying myself as'to the cause by the applicant, allow the condone the delay as requested therein, “Yor grant of renewal of mining leases wl 59/51, T.C. No. 4/1951 and T.C. NO. 2% epem Taluka may also be taken up. I (pigambar Minister £ ZG) NOTE Shri Prafalla R. Hede of Panaji ~ Goa was a holder of erstwhile mining céncession bearing T.C, No.30 dated 16/06/1950 for iron ore over an areca of 82.5229 Ha, situated at village Collein of Sanguem taluka, / Conseqtient upon the enactment of Abolition Act, 1987 the above mining concession stood abolished and declared as mining lease under the MMDR Act 1957, By an application dated 02/06/1992 (at page 39/4) Shri Prafulla Hede applied for renewal of the above dlccmed mining lease ‘The State Government by a letter dated 11/08/1992 [at page 42/e rejected the application as being time barred, |t appears, the said letter, the applicant filed a revision applic vation. ele Cent Government Which ;by its order dated 09/02/ 1d Rect dated 11/08/1992 and directed the| State g6vernne renewal application on merits ancl in portale with Iw. In this connection, it may be sled Way ie wtSslon for ren of mining lease is required f@-be accomyp if by, x towing docum under Rule 22 of MCR 198 << 1. At a 2 opp Neage is igAMQOPey i BAB Jers ofs.500 ofa) <9 1 Togas Wiad tax wea ize ners of susface a in terms of Rule 22 (3)(h) As far as statement of consent towards surface rights is con: the advice of the Law Department may kindly be seen at page 220/6. Law Departnent has opined that in view of the provisions of insistence of consent of owners of surface rights at the time of appli for renewal would not be on sound footing and that consent could furnished bythe applicant after execution of thie lease decd before into the Jeased area. The State Governtiient as a matter of policy has ot insisted so far on the consent at ht time of filing the application all cases so far have beeh renewed without the insistence of such cos J @ ‘The case was also referred to the Forest Department as forest Jand involved. The party has since complied with the provisions of FCA © and obtained clearance under, section 2 of FCA 1980, ‘The letter 98/06/2006 from the Forest Department enclosing therein copies of Jeters from the MOEF dated 13/10/2003 and 24/02/2006 may kindly cen in this regard ( at pages 172/¢ to 170/c). Out of 42.2796 Ha. of Jand, approval for diversion of 30.5688 Ha. has already been broken esd an area of 9.5 Ha. of forest area is to be broken up, An arca of 08 Ha, is to be retained for future use, The Ministry has also stated he period shall be co terminus with the period under MMDR Act | which in this case will bt 21/11/2007, The above approval is =t to conditions as stipulated by the Ministry vide their jéticis dated 2003 and 24/02/2006. | | ‘The party has been ohtaine environmentaleleaMince poder oP setion 1994 from MOEF as miay be seen 2104 “ JS 8 OF ScoQ8 of MMDR S7, no mining lease in respect of mien sect in Part A and of the First Schedule

    You might also like