Tuesday, the 27 March, 2012 at 3.00 PM in Aluminium Room, First Floor, D Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

wheatauditorSoftware and s/w Development

Oct 30, 2013 (3 years and 8 months ago)

111 views

BY E
-
MAIL/FAX/SPEED POST

File No. 7/7/2012
-
M.IV

Government of India

Ministry of Mines



New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2012

Subject:

Agenda notes for the quarterly m
eeting of the Central Coordination
-
cum
-
Empowered Committee (CEC) on

Mineral Development and Regulation, to be held
under the chairmanship of Secretary (Mines) on

Tuesday, the 27
th

March,
2012 at 3.00 PM in Aluminium Room, First Floor, D Wing, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi.




The undersigned is directed to refer to this Mini
stry’s O.M. of even number dated
9.3.2012 on the subject mentioned above, and to send herewith agenda notes for the

above
-
mentioned

meeting.



2.

Kindly confirm nomination of a senior level officer for the meeting.



Sd/
-

(Chandramani Sharma)

Director

T
el No. 23383096



1.

Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, New Delhi.

2.

Director General, Department of Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, New Delhi.

3.

Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (IS), North Block, New Delhi.

4.

Secretary, Ministry of
Steel, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.

5.

Director General, Civil Aviation, Aurobindo Marg, Opposite Safdarjung Airport, New
Delhi.

6.

Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi.

7.

Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi.

8.

Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Delhi.

9.

Secretary
, Department of Fertilizers, New Delhi.

10.

Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai

11.

Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

12.

Director General, Geological Survey of India, Kolkata.
13.

Secretary, In charge of Mining an
d Geology in the State of:


i)

Andhra Pradesh

ii)

Chhatisgarh

iii)

Goa

iv)

Gujarat

v)

Jharkhand

vi)

Karnataka

vii)

Madhya Pradesh

viii)

Maharashtra

ix)

Orissa

x)

Rajasthan

xi)

Tamil Nadu


with the request to make it convenient to attend the meeting.


Copy for information to:

1.

PS to Hon’ble MOS (IC)

for (Mines)

2.

Sr. PPS to Secretary (Mines)

3.

Sr. PPS to AS(Mines)

4.

PS to JS(MR)


Sd/
-


(Chandramani Sharma)

Director

Tel No. 23383096


Government of India

Ministry of Mines




Agenda notes for the quarterly meeting of the Coordination
-
cum
-
Empowered Committee

(CEC) on Mineral Development and Regulation, to
be held on Tuesday, the
27th

March, 2012

at 3.00 PM in Aluminium Room,
First Floor, D Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

………


The last meeting of the Coordination
-
cum
-
Empowered Committee (CEC)
on
Mineral Deve
lopment and Regulation
was held under the chairmanship of Secretary
(Mines) on the 16
th

January, 2012.

The minutes of the meeting, which are also
available on the Ministry’s website (mines.nic.in) were circulated to all State
Secretaries, in
-
charge of Min
ing and Geology,
the
Central Ministries/Departments
concerned, Geological Survey of India (GSI) and I
ndian Bureau of Mines (IBM) on
3rd February, 2012

with the request to furnish action taken report
s

on the points
discussed and decisions taken in the meeti
ng, by
17th February, 2012
.
However,

no ATR has
,

so far
,

been received from the State Governments

and other
Ministries/ agencies viz. MoEF and IBM
.

All State Governments
,

MoEF and IBM
may
please refer to the minutes of the meeting of the CEC held on

16
th

January, 2012
,
and intimate the action taken on each of the points concerning the
m
.


NOTES ON THE
AGENDA ITEMS
:

1.

Mining Tenement System

1.1

Presentation by M/s Ernst & Young on the status of the project.

1.2

Review of the pendency position on the comment
s /views sought from
important mineral producing State Governments.

1.3

Finalization of the future course of action, including issue of RFP based on the
DPR.



2.


Strategic Plan for
the Mineral Sector
.

2.1


The Strategy Paper for the Ministry of Mines (av
ailable on the website of the
Ministry) has identified six initiatives as follows:

(i)

Expand resource and reserve base to meet future demand by ensuring
increase in mineral reserves through greater exploration, and acquisition of
international assets for
identified minerals

(ii)

Reduce delays in grant of Exploration licence and mining lease, Environment
and forest clearance, and Land acquisition

(iii)

Put core enablers in place for Infrastructure, Human capital and Technology

(iv)

Ensuring sustainable min
ing and development

(v)

Focus on information, education and communication efforts

(vi)

Implementation and governance

structures.


2.2

As part of the process of implementation of the strategic plan, the Ministry
has identified the three areas of focus in th
e first phase, pertaining to expansion of
resource and reserve base of minerals, ensuring sustainable mining and
development and implementation and
g
overnance

structures
. Some of the
initiatives already underway have been also merged as part of this proces
s as given
in paras below.


Comprehensive Guidelines for Reporting
of Mineral Reserves & Resources
under UNFC System


2
.
3

In order to improve the quality of reporting of exploration data, the Ministry
of Mines has drafted Comprehensive Guidelines for Rep
orting of Mineral Reserves &
Resources under UNFC System (copy at
Appendix
). While the United Nations
Framework Classification (UNFC) had been adopted by the Government in the year
2003, and the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) had issued guidelines for variou
s
stakeholders from time to time for adopting the UNFC, there was a felt need to
prepare comprehensive guidelines to ensure better compliance to UNFC as
enunciated in the National Mineral Policy, 2008. It is expected that the guidelines
would not only assi
st Governments in strengthening their framework for
management of mineral bearing areas but would also assist the prospectors in
planning and supervision of exploration programmes and encourage a responsible
and accountable reporting of resources/ reserves

that provide wider investor
acceptability. The draft Guidelines had also been hosted on the website of the
Ministry for inviting comments of concerned members of the public on the 26th
August 2011. In order to finalize the guidelines the State Governments

may offer
their views/comments in the meeting.


Sustainable Development Framework


2.4

The consultants to the Ministry of Mines have prepared a Sustainable
Development Framework (SDF) for the Indian Mining Sector (available on the
website of Ministry). As

a part of the process of roll
-
out of the SDF the Ministry is
proposing to identify three States for preparing detailed Framework. State
Governments may offer their comments in this matter.


Increasing efficiency of regulation of mining leases through Mi
ning Plan


2.5

Of late several concerns have been raised on the regulation of the mining
activities in the country. In a recent judgment of Supreme Court dated 27.2.2012 in
SLP(C) No 19628
-
19629 of 2009 and in SLP(C) Nos. 729
-
731/2011, 21833/2009,
12498
-
49
9/2010, SLP(C) CC16157 &CC18235/2011, the Apex Court, in the matter
of auction of extraction rights for minor mineral boulder, gravel and sand quarries
over areas varying in size from 4.5 hectares and above in various districts of
Haryana, has directed tha
t:

a.

all States/Union Territories, Ministry of Environment and Forests
(MoEF) and the Ministry of Mines should, within a period of six months from
27.2.2012, give effect to and submit compliance report to the Apex Court on
the:

(i)

Recommendations in the

Report of the Group on
Environmental aspects of quarrying of minor minerals set up in
MoEF which inter
-
alia include restricting minimum size of mining
lease to 5 hectares, minimum tenure of 5 years, cluster mining
approach, mandatory mining plan, separate

corpus for
rehabilitation and reclamation, preparation of hydro
-
geological
reports for mining below ground water table, and grant of leases
stretch wise (without dividing the area) in river beds,

(ii)

Model guidelines on Mining Framework of minor
mineral
/cluster mining/Reclamation and Rehabilitation as
drafted by the Indian Bureau of Mines.

b.

Central Government should take steps to bring into force the Minor
Mineral Conservation and Development Rules at the earliest.

c.

leases of minor minerals including

their renewal for an area less than 5
hectares be granted by the States/ Union Territories only after getting
environmental clearance from the MoEF.

2.6

In this context, the IBM had prepared a paper titled “Environmental aspects
of quarrying of minor min
erals


Evolving of Model Guidelines” which was circulated
to all the State Governments by the IBM on 16th May 2011 (Annexure II). These
guidelines are available on the website of the IBM (at the following link
http://ibm.nic.in/Report_minor.pdf
). Since the directions of the Supreme Court
need to be complied with in a timely manner, pending comments/view of the State
Governments on the draft guidelines are requested to submit the same in the
meeting, especial
ly on the issue of compliance of the respective State Minor Mineral
Concession Rules on mandatory mining plan/framework for minor minerals.

3. Steps taken by State Governments to curb illegal mining.

3.1

Action taken by the State Governments for curbing i
llegal mining as reported
in the following table by each State Governments would be reviewed.


Action taken to curb illegal mining


1.


Whether Rules framed for curbing illegal mining
under Section 23C of MMDR Act, 1957

Yes / No


Action taken to curb illegal mining


2.


Whether Task Force consti
tuted

(a)

at State level

(b)

at District level


Yes / No

Yes / No

3.


Whether meetings of the Task Forces are held
regularly

Yes / No

4.


Last date of meeting of:

(a)

State level Task Force

(b)

District Level Task Force


dd/mm/yyyy

dd/mm/yyyy

5.


Whether quarterly report on ill
egal mining sent to
IBM for the Quarter ending:



March



June



September



December



Yes / No

Yes / No

Yes / No

Yes / No

6.


Whether quarterly report on illegal mining circulated
as agenda item for discussion in the meeting of

(a)

State Level Task Force

(b)

SCEC



Yes /
No

Yes / No


Action taken to curb illegal mining


7.


Status on use of satellite imagery / remote sensing
data to curb illegal mining


(a) whether Satellite imagery /Remote sensing data
obtained for mineral bearing areas.


(b) Total mineral bearing area covered (in hectares).


(c) whether digiti
zation of Cadastral maps initiated
under the Central Sponsored Scheme of Department
of Land Resources (DOLR) in the Union Ministry of
Rural Development


(d) No and name of mineral bearing districts where
mapping completed under DOLR scheme.


(e) whether di
gitized cadastral maps prepared under
DOLR scheme integrated with Satellite imagery/
Remote sensing data




Yes / No


________



Yes / No



________



Yes / No

8.


Total number of Mining Leases suspended by the
State Government in the quarter for violations

/
illegal mining

________

9.


Whether Special Cell set up in Police Department to
tackle cases of illegal mining and extortion.

Yes / No

10.

Action taken by State Governments on violations of
provisions of MCDR, 1988, reported by IBM:

(i)

No. of Mining leases ca
ncelled

(ii) No. of Mining leases suspended


____________

____________

3.2

Shri Justice M. B. Shah Commission has informed that requisite information
on Illegal mining from Odisha is still awaited. State Government of Odisha is
requested to render assista
nce and furnish information to the Commission of
Inquiry.

4.

Implementation of Rule 45 of MCDR, 1988

4.1

Rule 45 of MCDR, 1988 has been amended on 9th February 2011 to make it
mandatory for all mining lease holders, traders, exporters, stockists, and end
-
users
of minerals to register online with the IBM. The Rule further makes it mandatory for
all mining lease holders, traders, exporters, stockists and end
-
users to report to
IBM and State Government on the transaction in minerals on monthly and annual
bas
is.

4.2

Online registration system has commenced and is available on the website of
IBM (
http://ibm.nic.in
).

4.3

IBM is developing online monthly and annual reporting software, which is
likely to be operational by March 20
12. Till then all lease holders, traders,
exporters, stockists and end
-
users are required to report manually to the IBM and
the State Governments.

4.4

In this context, status on action taken by the State Governments on
implementation of Rule 45 of MCDR, 19
88 as per table given below would be
reviewed.


Implementation of amended Rule 45 of MCDR, 1988


1.


Implementation of amended Rule 45 of MCDR, 1988:

(a) Total number of Mining Lease holders in State:


(b) Total number of Mining Lease holders reporting to St
ate
Government:


(i) on monthly basis
-


_______





(ii) on annual basis
-


(c) Total number of Mining Lease holders not reporting


(i) on monthly basis
-


(ii) on annual basis
-


(d) whether details of non
-
reporting Mining Lease holders
informed t
o IBM for initiating action:


(e) whether State Government has any mechanism for
auditing of monthly reports by Mining Lease holders:


(f) If yes, number of reports of Mining Lease holders
audited:


(f) Whether traders, exporters, stockist, end
-
users of
m
inerals have started reporting to State Government as per
Form ‘N’ of MCDR, 1988.


(g) Please give details on reporting by traders, exporters,
stockist, end
-
users of minerals in the table given below:
-


Activity

Total No. of
persons
registered in the
State

Total
Number of
reporting to
State Govt.

Total
Number
Not
reporting to
State Govt.

Trader




Exporter




_______

_______


_______

_______



Yes / No



Yes / No


_______



Yes / No


Stockist




End
-
user









2.


Whether the State Governm
ent has evolved any mechanism
for audit of monthly report given by traders, exporters,
stockists and end
-
users of minerals in Form ‘N’ of MCDR,
1988.

Yes / No

3.


If yes, how many reports have been audited so far.

_______


4.


Whether Transporters of minerals
have been registered

Yes / No

5.


Whether State Government has commenced automation of
issue of Transit Permits (on the pattern of NCode System
Solution in Gujarat).

Yes / No

6.


Whether data on export of mineral obtained from
Customs/Port.

Yes / No

7.


If yes
, whether correlated with data reported to State
Government.

Yes / No

8.


Total number of licenses/ permits cancelled or restrictions
issued violations by :

(i)

Traders of minerals

(ii) Exporters of minerals

(iii) Stockists of minerals

(iv) End
-
users of mineral
s.



_______

_______

_______

_______

4.5

Implementation of Rule 45 of MCDR, 1988 by IBM would be reviewed region
-
wise state
-
wise.



5.

Model State Mineral Policy

5.1

The Ministry of Mines had circulated a model State Mineral Policy for enabling
each State

to suitably prepare its own mineral policy in line with the National
Mineral Policy, 2008. In the last meeting of the CCEC the Ministry had also
requested all the State Governments to harmonise the State mineral Policies with
the Strategy Paper of the Min
istry of Mines. Status on this regard to be indicated by
the State Governments.

5.2

The National Mineral Policy, 2008, clearly provides that conservation of
minerals is to be taken in positive sense of augmentation of mineral resources and
zero waste minin
g, rather than abstaining from use of available minerals. However,
it has been noticed that some State policies are seeking to reserve mineral bearing
areas in favor of PSUs thereby restricting the availability of the area available for
concessions. Consid
ering the fact that there is a need to increase exploration of
minerals in which the country is scarce and utilize low grade minerals through
beneficiation, and the fact that State policies have to be in consonance with the
MMDR Act, the State Government p
olicy to reserve mineral bearing areas in favour
of PSUs, is advised to be reviewed by the respective State Government. Yet, in case
any reservation in favour of PSU is preferred in the interest of mineral
development, State Governments are advised to seek

the approval of the Central
Government under the provisions of section 17A of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

6
.

Setting up of State Innovation Council



6.1

Vide letter dated 4th October 2010, Dr. Sam Pitroda, Chairman, Nat
ional
Innovation Council, had requested all Chief
Ministers

to set up a State Innovation
Council to focus on the issues pertaining to support State Governments to promote
innovation in the State, encourage young talent and local universities, colleges,
Med
ium and Small Scale Industries (MSME), R&D Institutes, map opportunities for
innovation in the State, identify and reward talent in innovation and disseminate
success stories, organise seminars, lectures, workshops on innovation and create
State innovation

portal to educate, help create innovation eco
-
systems, and
organize risk capital and prepare an Innovation Roadmap 2010
-
2020 for the State.


6.2

Among several policy initiatives, the National Mineral Policy, 2008, lays down
that :

(i)

zero waste mining w
ill be the national goal and mining technology will be
upgraded to ensure extraction and utilization of the entire run
-
of
-
mines,

(ii)

innovative structures for developing and financing the infrastructure needs of
the mining sector will be devised, and

(ii
i)

promotion of research and development in minerals and to establish
appropriate educational and training facilities for human resources
development.


6.3

In order to achieve these, all important mineral producing State
Governments may consider setting up

a State Innovative Council. Such State
Governments that have already set up such Councils should actively consider
referring the above
-
mentioned policy initiatives in the National Mineral Policy, 2008,
to devise suitable programs.


7.

Reconstitution of t
he Central Coordination
-
cum
-
Empowered
Committee and review of the position regarding constitution of State
Level Empowered Committees.


7
.1

The Ministry of Mines had, on 4th March, 2009, constituted a Coordination
-
cum
-
Empowered Committee (CEC) in order to

monitor and minimize delays in grant
of approvals by the Central Ministries/Departments for mineral concessions. The
CEC provides a very useful forum for sharing experiences and practices of the State
Governments and deliberating on various important iss
ues facing the mineral
sector. Considering the need for having more effective coordination among the
Central Ministries/Departments and the State Governments for grant of mineral
concessions as well as for dealing with other important matters relating to m
ineral
development and regulation in the country, the Ministry has on 20.12.2011
reconstituted the CEC as “Coordination
-
cum
-
Empowered Committee on Mineral
Development and Regulation”. Its Terms of Reference (TOR) have also been
broadened so as to bring wi
thin its ambit other important matters viz. Sustainable
Development Framework, coordination/review of steps for prevention of illegal
mining, issues arising out of the National Mineral Policy and legislation governing
mineral development etc. A copy of th
e Ministry’s Order of even number dated
20.10.2011 in this regard is at
Annexure
-
I.


7
.2


The Ministry has been requesting all State Governments to constitute
their State level Empowered Committee (SEC) under the chairmanship of Chief
Secretary or Addition
al Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary of the Mining/Industries
Department with representation from all Departments/Institutions concerned.
As
per the information received by the Ministry, all mineral
-
rich States viz. Andhra
Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gu
jarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu have constituted their SECs,
and
in many States, SECs are meeting regularly.




7
.3


Keeping in view the various critical issues and challenges presently
facin
g the mineral sector, which have necessitated reconstitution of the CEC and
revision of its TOR, all State Government also need to review the composition and
TOR of their SEC, and effect suitable changes therein. As mentioned in the
previous meetings of t
he CEC, the SEC should include the Ministries/Departments of
Steel, Environment & Forests, Shipping, Railways, Revenue (Customs) and
Fertilizers, besides GSI and IBM, so that the whole gamut of issues facing the
mineral sector could be considered by the Co
mmittee. Secretary (Mines) has
written to all Chief Secretaries in this regard vide letter dated 17.11.2011
(
Annexure
-
II
).

The State Governments were reminded in this regard vide letter
dated 20.3.2012.
As requested in Secretary (Mines)’s aforesaid lett
er, all State
Governments may also ensure action on the following aspects:


(a) The order constituting/reconstituting the SEC should be put on the website
of the State Government;


(b) A State Government officer of sufficiently senior level should be nomin
ated
to function as the Nodal Officer for dealing with the matters concerning the
Ministry of Railways, Ministry of Shipping and Department of Revenue;


(c) The SEC should meet once in three months;


(d)All mineral concession cases pending with the State G
overnments and other
important issues should be put up before the SEC to facilitate their review and
expeditious disposal; and


(e) The proceedings of the SEC meetings should invariably be put up on the
State’s website.


7
.4

All State Governments to intim
ate the action taken by them on the above
-
mentioned points.


8
.

Steps taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forests for expediting
environment and forest clearances.


8
.1

As decided in the previous CEC meetings, all State Governments had to send
a lis
t of cases awaiting forest clearance to the MOEF, so that they could be
expeditiously followed up. It was noted

in the CEC meeting held on 16.1.2012

that
the Governments of Chhattisgarh, Gujarat
, Jharkhand

and Rajasthan had sent their
lists to the Ministr
y of Mines, which
have been

forwarded to the MoEF. All other
State Governments

may also
send their respective lists to the MoEF directly, under
intimation to the Ministry of Mines,
without any further delay
.


8
.2

A

Working Group

was

constituted under the c
hairmanship of Additional
Secretary (mines) to evolve software solution for monitoring the pendency of FCA
applications at the State Government level
. The Working Group held a series of
meetings, and as per its recommendations and deliberations,
the

MoEF

has

operationalised
the said software in
January, 2012.
The MoEF had informed in the
CEC meeting held on 16.1.2012 that it had

issued detailed guidelines on the
working of the software, and training programmes in the regional offices for the
State function
aries ha
d

also

been conducted.

The MoEF had

also

informed in the
last
meeting
of the
CEC held

that the nodal officers would populate the data in the
software, which was expected to be completed by March, 2012.


8
.3

As decided in the last meeting of the
CEC, the MoEF may
please take action
on the following points:

(a)

send

the guidelines on the subject
along with

the list of nodal officers to the
Ministry of Mines, for circulation among the State

Mining and Geology
Departments;


(b)

ensure that
all

a
pplications
a
re

accepted and registered at the Nodal Officer
level so that the system capture
s

them immediately, and its status
is

available to the users online
; and


(c)

inform

whether applications for wildlife clearance
can

also

be integrated with
the system, and whether

the system could generate a single UID No. for
both forest as well as wildlife clearances.


9
.

Timely decisions in accordance with the MMDR Act and MCR, and
submission of quarterly reports.



9
.1


Rule 63A and 24A of the Mineral Concession Rules lay do
wn time schedules
for (a) disposal of concession applications: and (b) grant of renewals respectively.
For various reasons, applications remain pending and in case of renewals, operate
under deemed extensions. These circumstances at times lead to incidence

of illegal
mining.


9
.2
In view of this, the Ministry has, vide letter dated 15.12.2009, prescribed
quarterly reports to be submitted by the State Governments on (i) disposal of
applications for mineral concessions (ii) lease/licence execution status an
d (iii)
status of renewal of concessions. This letter along with the said proformae is also
available on the website of the Ministry (www.mines.nic.in).


9
.
3

This has been one of the agenda points for all the previous meetings of the
CEC.

However, in sp
ite of regular

review of the status of pendency in the CEC
meetings, and a series of letters/reminders

to the State Governments
,

it is
noticed

that most of the States have still been unable to send quarterly reports to the
Ministry.

Besides, it is
seen

fro
m the reports received from the State Governments
that there is
an enormous number of
mineral concession and renewal applications

pending with the State Governments
. It is also noticed that the pace of disposal of
cases has been extremely slow. The penden
cy is particularly high in the States of
Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh, Orissa and Tamil Nadu. A statement showing the State
-
wise pendency of
mineral concession applications,
licence/lease execution stat
us

and renewal
applications, as per the State Governments’ quarterly reports, is at
Annexure
-
I
II
.


9
.4

As per the reports submitted by the State Governments, a total of 47034
applications (458 RP applications, 15,910 PL applications and 28,149 ML
applica
tions) were pending with the State Governments. Besides, a total of 696
lease/licence execution cases and 2065 renewal applications were pending with the
State Governments. It was noticed that the pendency was particularly high in the
States of Andhra Pra
desh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh, Orissa and Tamil Nadu.

9
.
5

T
he State Governments must accord due importance to the matter, and
address the matter as brought out below:

i)

The pending applications should be disposed of i
n a manner that is in
conformity with the extant Rules and guidelines.

ii)

Adhere to the time
-
frame prescribed under Rule 63A of the MCR for disposal
of concession applications, viz. RP (within 6 months); PL (within 9 months); and ML
(within 12 months).


i
i
i
)

Ensure renewal of mining leases in time as prescribed under Rule 24A of the
MCR.

iv
) Ensure that all their records regarding mineral concession and renewal
applications are maintained properly and updated regularly.

v)


Put up the status of conce
ssion cases before the SEC on a quarterly basis
for review and expeditious disposal.

(v
i
) Adhere to the timelines prescribed by the Ministry for submission of reports
i.e. within one month of the close of the quarter.

(vi
i
) Undertake special drives fo
r minimizing the pendency of applications and
renewal cases.

9
.6

A State
-
wise review of the position regarding pendency would be undertaken
in the meeting.

9
.
7

It was informed in the meeting of the CEC held on 3.5.2011 that Regional
Offices of IBM were car
rying out data entry regarding LOIs. IBM had informed that
the data entry regarding LOIs was already under way, and since the work was an
ongoing process, the State Governments should evolve a system whereby the
requisite information could be furnished to

IBM regularly. The State Governments
may

send complete list of LOIs issued by them till date to IBM on a regular basis.
IBM and the State Directors
should also

hold
regular

meetings to reconcile the data.

10
.

Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 14.3.201
2
regarding ‘MOU


cases
in Civil appeal filed by M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. vs.
the State of Orissa
.



10
.1

Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an

order dated 14.3.2012 in Civil appeal
No. 2790/2012 {arising out of SLP (C) No. 8567/2008} filed by M/s
Bhushan Power
and Steel Ltd. vs. the State of Orissa. The area in question in that case was a
previously held area un
der mining lease for iron ore.

The State Government sought
relaxation of Rule 59(1) from notifying the area, and recommended another
appli
cant (M/s Neepaz Metallicks). As such, the subject area was a non
-
notified
area. While seeking relaxation of Rule 59(1) and recommending another applicant,
the State Government, ignored the application of M/s Bhushan Power and Steel
Ltd., who has signed a
n MOU with the State Government on 15.5.2002, and has
also set up a steel plant in the State. Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the said
order, directed “…
the State of Orissa to take appropriate steps to act in terms of
the MOU dated 15th May, 2002, as also
its earlier commitments to recommend the
case of the Appellants to the Central Government for grant of adequate iron ore
reserves to meet the requirements of the Appellants in their steel plant at
Lapanga…”


10
.2

It is seen

that Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ab
ove observations uphold the
sanctity of MOUs signed by applicant companies with the State Governments while
considering grant of mineral concessions

particularly in non
-
notified areas
.
This
was precisely the

view/stand taken in the meeting
taken by Secret
ary (Mines) with
State Secretaries

on 2.3.2012,
with regard to

the question of considering

MOU


cases in non
-
notified areas (Minutes enclosed at
Annexure
-
I
V
).


Accordingly, the
Ministry proposes to retain

t
he clause relating to ‘MOU


cases in
the
guidelin
es
dated 9.2.2010
, with suitable modifications as per the discussions held in the
meeting
held
on 2.3.2012
. The Department of Legal Affairs will be

consulted in the
matter.


1
1
.

Hindustan Copper Limited (HCL)’s mineral concession proposals
pending with St
ate Governments
.

1
1
.1


During
the
meeting

held on 27.2.2012

to

review the performance of
Hindustan Copper Ltd.

(HCL), it was
desired that the

status of

HCL’s

following
proposals pending with
the State
Government
s
for
g
rant of
l
eases/permits may be
reviewed

in CEC meeting:
-

SI.NO

State

Area

Date of
application
submitted to
S
tate Dept
t
. for
RP, PL & ML

Remarks

1 (a)

Rajasthan

Baniwali Ki Dhani (PL
41/08)

-

Area notified by
the State Govt. on
1/5/08
.

865.96
Hects

PL

2.6.08

Part of the area un
der
dispute
with

applicants
of minor minerals, and
there is a stay order.

1 (b)

Eight areas for RP had
been notified by the Govt.
of Rajasthan on
27/5/2010
.

Total area:
8622.39
Hects

RP

28.6.10

--

2

Bhagal Copper Deposit,
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan

182.92
Hects

PL

18.10.10

P
ending with DMG,
Chittorgarh.

1

HARYANA

2089 sq
km

RP

4.2.08

DMG, Haryana called
for interview on 6.7.10
for deciding priority for
grant. Result awaited;
no further
communication.


MADHYA PRADESH





1

Reconnaissance Permit
(Distt Balaghat, MP)

1464 sq

km

(revised to
58.73 sq.
km. due to
overlapping
with other
RP
applicants.

RP

16.5.08

Central Govt’s approval
for an area 58.73 sq.
km. conveyed on
5.10.2010. State Govt.
yet to issue letter of
grant in favour of HCL.





1

JHARKHAND


Dhobani

Pathargora

Block


734.134
hects


ML


18.6.09


File
to be
forwarded to
DMG, Ranchi.

2

Dhatkidih Tirildih Block,
Distt Saraikela

654.941
Hect

ML

12.11.09

Letter issued to Circle
Officer for providing
NOC for the land
schedule.

3

Nandup
-

Talsa Block

980.742
Hect

PL

2
2.6.10

Submitted to AMO,
Singhbhum (E),
Jamshedpur on
22.6.2010. Compilation
of land schedule in
process.


Appendix

COMPREHENSIVE
GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING OF MINERAL

RESERVES & RESOURCES UNDER UNFC SYSTEM

PREFACE

While the United Nations Framework Classi
fication (UNFC) had been adopted by
the Government in the year 2003, and the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) had
issued guidelines for various stakeholders from time to time for adopting the
UNFC, there was a felt need to prepare comprehensive guidelines to e
nure better
compliance to UNFC as enunciated in the National Mineral Policy, 2008. It is
expected that the guidelines would not only

assist governments in strengthening
their framework for management
of mineral bearing areas but would also

assist the
prosp
ectors
in planning and supervision of exploration programmes
, and encourage
a

responsible and accountable reporting

of resources/ reserves that provide wider
investor acceptability. These guidelines are also aimed at prospectors and mining
lease holders wi
th historical exploration data obtained in non
-
UNFC format, with a
view to ensure that the same is systematically re
-
assessed as per UNFC. These
guidelines also enunciate the best practices for a Recognized Qualified Person to
report in UNFC system. Explo
ration r
esults should be summarized and reported in
a Technical Report of good professional quality in accordance with the UNFC and
requirements under Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 and
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960.

It is expected that
these guidelines would lead to
development of a database in commonly accepted reporting standards which could
be independently regulated in a sustainable manner.

NATIONAL MINERAL POLICY, 2008

2
.

The National Mineral Policy, 2008 (NMP), states that conser
vation of
minerals shall be construed not in a restrictive sense of abstinence from
consumption or preservation for use in the distant future but as a positive
concept leading to augmentation of reserve base through improvement in mining
methods, benefic
iation and utilisation of low grade ore and rejects and recovery
of associated minerals. The NMP further mandates that there shall be an
adequate and effective legal and institutional framework mandating zero
-
waste
mining as the ultimate goal and a comm
itment to prevent sub
-
optimal and
unscientific mining, and non
-
adherence to the Mining Plan based on these
parameters shall carry repercussions. The Policy also states that a thrust will be
given to exploitation of mineral resources in which the country is

well endowed
so that the needs of domestic industry are fully met, keeping in mind both
present and future needs, while at the same time exploiting the external markets
for such minerals. In order to do so, the Policy enunciates development of a
proper in
ventory of resources and reserves, based on a comprehensive and up to
date review of exploration data. The Policy further enunciates that the resource
inventory will be in accordance with the latest version of the UNFC system
showing reserves and remaining

resources. It is held that this data, alongwith a
Tenement Registry would assist not only in planning and executing exploration
programs in the country for identification of new mineral deposits, but also
ensure optimum utilisation of the identified reso
urces/reserves already allotted
under mining leases.

UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CLASSIFICATION
-
Background

3
.1

The United Nations Framework Classification for Fossil Energy and Mineral
Resources (UNFC) is a universally applicable scheme for classifying petro
leum and
solid minerals (including energy minerals) reserves and resources through the use
of a three
-
digit code clearly indicating the essential characteristics of energy and
mineral commodities in market economies. The Government adopted the UNFC
vide Ga
zette Notification No.185 dated 17.4.2003, through amendment to
Mineral Conservation & Development Rules, 1988
.
Detailed guidelines,
definitions, etc. concerning UNFC were issued by IBM on 3 June 2003 and also
published by IBM in the latest edition of Mine
ral Conservation & Development
Rules, 1988, and are available on the website of the Indian Bureau of Mines
(
http://ibm.nic.in
). The classification of reserves/ resources of various minerals
based on UNFC system were first pr
epared by IBM as on 1.4.2000 and later, as on
1.4.2005. Reserves/resources are now available mineral wise in State Reviews and
grade wise and state wise in Mineral Reviews in the Indian Mineral Yearbook
published by the IBM annually.

3
.2

The UNFC consists
of a three
-
dimensional system with
three axis
-

Geological Assessment, Feasibility Assessment and Economic Viability. The
process of geological assessment is generally conducted in stages of increasing
details. The typical successive stages of geological in
vestigation, i.e.,
reconnaissance, prospecting, general exploration and detailed exploration,
generate resource data with a clearly defined degree of geological assurance.
These four stages are, therefore, used as geological assessment categories in the
cl
assification. Feasibility assessment studies form an essential part of the process
of assessing a mining project. The typical successive stages of feasibility
assessment, i.e., geological study as initial stage followed by prefeasibility study
and feasibil
ity study/mining report are well
-
defined. The degree of economic
viability (economic or sub
-
economic) is assessed in the course of prefeasibility
and feasibility studies. A prefeasibility study provides a preliminary assessment
with a lower level of accura
cy as compared to that of a feasibility study which
assesses the economic viability in detail.

HOW DOES THE UNFC SYSTEM WORK

4.1

The broad objective of UNFC system is to classify mineral reserves and/
resources, inclusive of sub
-
economic categories of min
eralization along the three
axes namely, economic, feasibility and geological. This approach has been
simplified through the use of a three
-
digit code clearly indicating the essential
characteristics of extractable mineral commodities in market economies,
notably:



Degree of Economic/Commercial viability
, represented as E
-
Axis



Field project status and feasibility
, represented as F
-
Axis



Level of geological knowledge
, represented as G
-
Axis


4.2

The first set of categories (the E axis) designates the degree of
favorability
of social and economic conditions in establishing the commercial viability of the
project, including consideration of market prices and relevant legal, regulatory,
environmental and contractual conditions. The second set (the F axis) designate
s
the maturity of studies and commitments necessary to implement mining plans or
development projects. These extend from early exploration efforts before a
deposit or accumulation has been confirmed to exist through to a project that is
extracting and sell
ing a commodity, and reflect standard value chain management
principles. The third set of categories (the G axis) designates the level of certainty
in the geological knowledge and potential recoverability of the quantities.

REPORTING
SYSTEMS FOR
RESOURCE
& RESERVES UNDER UNFC

5.

Vide amendment in the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules,
1988, as per Rule 45, it is mandatory
for all
concession

holders of non
-
coal major
minerals to report their mineral reserves/resources as per UNFC. It
is

also
mandat
ory for all successful applicants for mining lease to submit Mining Plans
giving details of the reserves/ resources in the area proposed to be allotted to
them in terms of UNFC. The UNFC practice guide mentioned
in

the MCDR
illustrates the conditions to be

satisfied for classification of exploration
information vis a vis UNFC Codes for resource and reserve.

REPORTING FOR RECONNIASSANCE OPERATIONS

5.1

Reconnaissance operations in the country are carried out by Government
agencies
-
the Geological Survey of I
ndia, Atomic Minerals Directorate for
Exploration and Research of Department of Atomic Energy of Central Government
(AMD), the State Directorate of Geology and Mining (by whatever name called),
and holders of Reconnaissance Permit granted in terms of the M
ines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. All the reconnaissance operations are
required to be conducted in terms of the Reconnaissance Scheme (Rule 3A of
MCDR, 1988), which shall be prepared in terms of the “Field Guidelines for
adoption o
f UNFC” as given in the MCDR. In order to ensure scientific
reconnaissance operations and monitoring of the reporting by the RP holder, the
IBM shall forward a copy of the Reconnaissance Scheme to the GSI at the
beginning of the year of the commencement of

the reconnaissance operations or
within 15 days of submission of the reconnaissance scheme by the holder of the
reconnaissance permit, whichever is later.

5.2

After completion of the reconnaissance operations, it is mandatory for all
persons or agencies
conducting reconnaissance prepare a Reconnaissance Report
along with the specimen of drill core or sampling or pitting mineral, containing
details on activities conducted and results thereof in the G4 Axis and G3 Axis
activity, if any (supported by laborat
ory results and physical evidence),
assessment of the explored area in F3 Axis and E3 Axis, and report as follows:

(i)

In case of a reconnaissance operation conducted by a
Reconnaissance Permit holder, a copy of the Reconnaissance Report shall be
submitted

to the State Government, GSI and IBM, within three months of
completion of the reconnaissance operations (rule 7(1)(iii) of MCR, 1960). In case
of atomic minerals, copy of the Report shall also be submitted to the AMD. The
Reconnaissance Report shall cont
ain details on the financial expenditure on
reconnaissance operations on yearly basis. Specimen of drill core or sampling or
pitting shall be submitted to the GSI by the holder of the reconnaissance permit.
The Government (through the GSI) shall reserve al
l rights to release the
Reconnaissance Report in public domain after two years of the reconnaissance
operations in terms of the provisions of the Rule 7(1)(iii) of MCR, 1960.

(ii)

In case of a reconnaissance operation conducted by a Government
agency othe
r than GSI, the Reconnaissance Report shall be uploaded on the
official website within six months of the completion of the reconnaissance
operations or within three months of preparation of the Reconnaissance Report,
and a copy of the Reconnaissance Report

shall be submitted to the GSI and IBM.

(iii)

In case of a reconnaissance operation conducted by the GSI, the
Reconnaissance Report shall be uploaded in the GSI portal within the next Field
season of the reconnaissance operation, and a summary of the reco
nnaissance
operation to be uploaded on the GSI portal within the Field season of the
reconnaissance operations itself.

5.3

The IBM shall furnish details of the reconnaissance schemes submitted and
the details of reconnaissance operations that have commenc
ed in the reporting
year by the 1
st

May of the year following the reporting year to the GSI, which shall
also be available on its website, in the following form:

Details of the reconnaissance operations that have commenced in the year ___.

Sl no.

Name of
t
he person
or agency
conducting
reconnaiss
ance
operations

Date of
commence
ment of the
reconnaissa
nce
operation

End date
of
reconnaiss
ance
operation

Whether a
Reconnaissa
nce Scheme
submitted
by RP holder
to IBM


Whether a
copy of
Reconnaissa
nce scheme
giv
en by
IBM to GSI

Action
taken for
violation
of non
submissio
n of
reconnaiss
ance
scheme or
non
reporting
of
commence
ment of
reconnaiss
ance
operations

Remarks











5.4

The GSI shall furnish a statement of all the reconnaissance operations that
have be
en undertaken in a particular reporting year to the IBM and the
concerned State Government, which shall be also published in its portal, in the
following form:

Sl
no.

Name of the
person or
agency
conducting
reconnaissance
operations (to
indicate GSI, if
GS
I itself is
conducting the
reconnaissance
operations)

State in
which
reconnaissa
nce
operations
is being
undertaken

Date of
commencem
ent of
reconnaissan
ce operation

Annual financial
expenditure
committed for the
reconnaissance
operation in
column 1

Whether
final
reconnaissance
report in terms of
the UNFC has
been submitted
to the GSI (In
case of GSI
operations,
whether data has
been filed in the
portal in the Field
season)

Date when
the final
Reconnaissan
ce Report
shall be
available in
the public
domain

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Whether data
generated in 334 or
333

If in 333,
whether 334
data
upgraded to
333

Remarks

8

9

10

5.5

All the holders of reconnaissance permits and any other Government
agency conducting reconnaissance operations shall report the total financia
l
expenditure on reconnaissance operations in a particular year to the GSI by 30
th

April of a year for the preceding financial year. The GSI shall maintain an annual
statement of total expenditure undertaken on reconnaissance operations in the
country base
d on the Reports filed to it on its portal as follows:

Expenditure on reconnaissance operations as on _________(
give year)

State

Opening balance

(total expenditure
on reconnaissance
in the previous
financial year)

Expenditure on
reconnaissance
operations i
n the
financial year

Closing balance

(total of opening
balance and
expenditure in the
financial year)

Andhra Pradesh










5.6

In case the holder of a reconnaissance permit holder fails to report as
required above, IBM or GSI may recommend to the co
ncerned State Government
to take suitable action to cancel the Permit or deny the grant of Prospecting
Licence to the holder of Reconnaissance Permit, for violation of MCDR, 1988 or
MCR, 1960, as the case may be.

REPORTING FOR PROSPECTING, GENERAL AND DET
AILED EXPLORATION

6.1

The prospecting, General exploration and Detailed exploration, referred to
as prospecting operation for the purpose of this guidelines, is carried out
generally by the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited (MECL), State
Directorate
of Mining and Geology (by whatever name it is called) and a holder of
a prospecting licence

in the country. All the prospecting operations (including
prospecting, General exploration and Detailed Exploration) shall be conducted as
per a Prospecting Plan pr
epared in terms of the “Field Guidelines for adoption of
UNFC” given in the MCDR.

6.2

After completion of the prospecting operations, it shall be mandatory for all
persons or agencies conducting prospection to prepare a Prospecting Report
(giving details
on prospecting, General exploration and Detailed exploration work
carried out) along with the specimen of drill core or sampling or pitting mineral,
supported by laboratory analysis and physical samples. In case of a prospecting
operation conducted by a ho
lder of a Prospecting Licence, a copy of the
Prospecting Report shall be submitted to the State Government and IBM. In case
of atomic minerals, Report shall be also submitted to the AMD. The Government
(through the IBM) shall reserve all rights to release
the Prospecting Report in
public domain after two years of the prospecting operations in terms of the
provisions of the MCR. In case of Prospecting operation conducted by a
Government agency on promotional basis, the Prospecting Report shall be
uploaded on

its official website within six months of the completion of the
prospecting operations or within three months of preparation of the Prospecting
Report, and a copy of the Prospecting Report shall be submitted to the IBM and
details on activities conducted
and results thereof in the G3, G2 and G1 Axis
(supported by laboratory analysis and physical evidence), assessment of the
explored area in F2 and F1 Axis, and assessment in E2 and E1 Axis (where
assessment is not possible in F1 Axis and E1 Axis, the reason
s must be clearly
recorded). In case prospecting operations are being conducted based on
reconnaissance data, the holder of prospecting licence shall indicate whether data
was generated through reconnaissance operations conducted previously or
procured fro
m Government.

6.3

The IBM shall publish on its website details of the prospecting operations
carried out in a particular year in the following form:

Details of prospecting operations conducted in the financial year______
(give
year)

Sl
no.

Name of the
pers
on or
agency
conducting
prospecting
operations

Date of
commence
ment of
prospecting
operation

Whether
Prospecting
Plan has
been filed
with the IBM

Date of
completi
on of
prospecti
ng
operatio
ns

Whether
the
prospect
or has
renewed
the
prospecti
ng
licence, if
s
o date
of
completi
on of
prospecti
ng
operatio
ns.

Whether
final
Prospecti
ng report
in terms
of the
UNFC has
been
submitte
d to the
IBM

Date
when the
final
Prospecti
ng Report
shall be
available
in the
public
domain

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8


Whether prospecting
is bas
ed on
reconnaissance
operations

If so, details of the
reconnaissance
operations

Remarks

9

10

11


6.4

I n case the holder of a Prospecting Licence fails to report as required above,
I BM may recommend to the concerned State Government to take suitable acti
on
to cancel the Licence or deny the grant of Mining Lease to the holder of
Prospecting Licence, for violation of MCDR, 1988 or MCR, 1960, as the case may
be.

REPORTING OF EXPLORATION DATA BY MINING LEASE HOLDERS

7.1

In case of a holder of mining lease, an
d any Government agency conducting
mining operation, the Mining Plan or Mining scheme shall clearly indicate the
annual exploration work that shall be carried out along with mining operations.
The results of all the exploration work so carried out shall b
e reported to the IBM
and State Directorate General of Mining and Geology, giving details of the mineral
exploration in G3, G2 or G1 Axis, F2 or F1 Axis, and E2 or E1 Axis in the form given
below. In case of no find, the same shall be also reported as ‘Nil
” report giving
details of the exploration activities carried out.

Details of exploration conducted during mining operations

Sl
no.

Name of the
person or
agency
conducting
mining
operations

Mine code

Whether Mining
Plan/ Scheme has
been filed with the
IB
M

Reserves
identified

(111,121,123,
221,222)


Resource
identified

(223, 224, 331,
332, 333, 334)

Remarks

1

2

3

4

5

6


7.2

In case the holder of a mining lease fails to report as required above, IBM
may recommend to the concerned State Government to take

suitable action to
cancel the Mining Lease for violation of MCDR, 1988 or MCR, 1960, as the case
may be.

Best Practices for Exploration for holders of RP and PL

8
.
1

These best practices aim to assist the licensees in the planning and
supervision of explo
ration programs which will be reported under UNFC. All
exploration programs carried out by a must be under the supervision of
Qualified
Experts, i.e
a
n Mining Engineer,
Geo
scientist

or a Recognized Qualified Person
(RQP)
,

who will be responsible and accoun
table for the planning, execution and
interpretation of all exploration activity as well as the quality of reporting. This set
of “best practices” has been framed to ensure a consistently high quality of work
that will maintain investor’s confidence and as
sist regulators. The guidelines are
not intended to restrict any original thinking or application of new approaches
that are essential for any successful mineral exploration.

8.2

All exploration work
shall be required to be
designed and carried out under
the supervision of an engineer or geoscientist with at least five (5) years
experience in mineral exploration, mine development, mine operation or project
assessment,
or an RQP and
has experience relevant to the subject matter of the
project or report
.

In

planning, implementing and supervising any exploration
work,
such Qualified Experts
should ensure that the practices followed are based
on criteria that are generally accepted in the industry or that can reasonably be
justified on scientific or technical
grounds.

8
.3

The geological premise on which
any

exploration work is conducted
including the deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralization sought,
should be supported by
minimum

data

and a reasoned scientific approach

as

prescribed in the g
uidelines for UNFC reporting in the Mineral Conservation and
Development Rules, 1988.

8
.4

Throughout the process of mineral exploration, the
Qualified Experts
should ensure that a minimum quality control checks are
in place and that
such
quality control me
asures are

implemented. Quality
checks

should be systematic
and apply to all types

of data acquisition, across the full range of values measured
and not only high or

unusual results.

8.5

All f
ield work
should be
planned and implemented under the direct
s
up
ervision of a Qualified Expert, and d
ata should be properly recorded and
documented at appropriate scales. All data

points should be accurately located
with respect to known reference points
, especially Geo
-
referencing coordinates
.
The
Qualified Expert
sup
ervising this work should ensure that any work by
employees, contractors or

consultants is done by competent personnel and that
appropriate quality assurance

programs and security procedures are practised.
Whenever several persons carry out

similar duties
or when the data has been
collected over a period of time, care should be

taken to ensure the quality and
consistency of the data being used.

8.6

The exploration process including planning, mapping, sampling, sample
preparation,

sample security and analysi
s or testing should be accompanied by
detailed record

keeping setting out the procedures followed, the results obtained
and the abbreviations

used. In addition to paper records,
all data shall be stored
in
digital
format, excluding any physical limitations

(like storage of core samples).

Each exploration should specify a set of process for
data verification to confirm
the

validity of exploration data that are entered into the database. A summary of
records

should be
invariably prepared and documented as pre
lude to the
exploration reports. All p
ractices
and procedures
used should be well
documented and justified.

8.7

The practices and procedures used in
every

sampling
exercise

should be
appropriate

for the objectives of the
exploration plan
. All sampling
exer
cise

should be carried out in a

careful and diligent manner using scientifically
established sampling practices designed

and tested to ensure that the results are
representative and reliable. Samples should

be collected under the supervision of
a
Qualified

Expert
.
Needless to add such sampling exercises should have quality
control checks, planned and implemented through the exploration, including

such
measures as external blanks, standards and duplicate

samples. Where the volume
of individual samples is red
uced prior to shipping to a

laboratory for analysis,
appropriate reduction procedures to obtain representative

subsamples should be
ap
p
lied and verified.


8.8

The drilling method selected by a
Qualified Expert
should be appropriate to
the

material being in
vestigated, the objective of the program and local drilling
conditions.

The drill hole size selected
, subject to the minimum allowed in terms
of the EIA notification 2006 (issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests),
should provide sufficient repres
entative sample material for

analysis and
reference. Surface and down
-
hole locational surveys should be

undertaken using
techniques appropriate for the hole size, angle and length of holes. A

representative fraction of the drill sample material should be r
etained, however if

material is not retained, the
licensee or the Qualified Expert

should report and
explain the reason for this

decision.

Drill logs, forms or software specifically suited
to the type of drilling, the particular

geological situation, and t
he minerals being
sought, should be used for detailed

geological logging of core or cuttings. Logs
should be appropriately detailed for the

type of drilling being conducted, the
geological setting, type of mineralization, and

geotechnical conditions. Core
or
sample recoveries should be noted on the logs.

Cross sections depicting basic
geology and hole data, including correlation with surface

geology and any nearby
holes should be developed and updated as drilling proceeds.

Any down
-
hole
geophysical informat
ion or other such surveys should also be kept with

the drill
log. A photographic record of the core is recommended, where appropriate.


8.9

The security of samples from sample acquisition to
its final
analysis
in lab
is
a vital component of the

sampling
ex
ercise
. Procedures should include the use of
secure core logging,

sampling, storage and preparation facilities, as appropriate,
and the prompt, secure

and direct shipping of samples to the laboratories. The
Qualified Expert

should
invariably

put

in place t
he best security procedures
practical, given the geographic and topographic

conditions and the logistics
created by the site location.

8.10

The selection of sample preparation procedures
should be approved by a
Qualified Expert

and

should be appropria
te to

the material being tested.
All
samples that are

reduced or split should be processed in
such
a manner that the
fraction analyzed or

tested is as representative of the whole sample as possible.
Representative fractions

of the material to be analyzed or tes
ted should be
retained for an appropriate period of

time,
to be noted in the exploration report,
and
as decided by the
Qualified Expert
.

8.11

Analysis and testing of samples should be done by a reputable and
p
referably

accredited laboratory qualified for
the particular material to be
analyzed or tested. The

selection of a laboratory, testing or mineral processing
facility and the analytical

methods used will be the responsibility of the
licensee
or the Qualified Expert
. The analytical methods chosen must

b
e documented and
justified. All analytical or test results should be supported by duly

signed
certificates or technical reports issued by the laboratory or testing facility and

should be accompanied by a statement of the methods used. The reliability of th
e

analytical and testing results should be measured using the results of the quality
control

samples inserted in the process by the
Qualified Expert
. Duplicate
analyses at other laboratories

should be undertaken.

8.12

A comprehensive and ongoing interpreta
tion of all the exploration data is
an essential

activity at all stages of the
exploration

and should be undertaken to
assess the results of

the work.

This interpretation should be based on all of the
information collected to date, be

systematic and thorou
gh, describe and
document the
interpretation

and discuss any

information that appears at variance
with the selected interpretation. The density of the

exploration data should be
critically assessed as to its ability to support the qualitative

and quantitat
ive
conclusions.


8.13

Estimation of a mineral resource and a mineral reserve are both
fundamental steps in

project development. The classification and categorization
of these estimates must be

done in accordance with
UNFC

and be prepared by a
Qualified Ex
pert
. A mineral resource can be estimated for material where the
geological

characteristics and the continuity are known or reasonably assumed
and where there is

the potential for production at a profit. Reserves can be
estimated when a positive prefeasibi
lity

or feasibility study as defined
in the UNFC
has established the technical,

economic and other relevant factors that indicate
that these resources can be produced

at a profit

or cost plus basis
.

8.14

All field work should be conducted in a safe, profe
ssional manner with due
regard for

the environment, the concerns of local communities a
nd with
regulatory requirements as required under the Sustainable Development
Framework.

8.15

The interpretation and assessment of the
Exploration

results at the end of

each phase

should determine if the program objectives have been met and if
further work is

justified. Any plan for further work should identify exploration
targets, recommend an

exploration program and present a budget and schedule.
Any changes in working

hypotheses an
d objectives should be recorded and
immediately reported to the IBM and the State Government concerned.

8.16

A comprehensive technical report
, Reconnaissance Report in the case of a
Reconnaissance permit and a Prospecting Report in the case
of a Prospecting
Licence,

signed by the
Qualified Expert
should be prepared on

completion of a
particular phase or stage of work

as declared by the licensee in the
Reconnaissance Plan or Prospecting Plan as submitted to the IBM or the State
Government conc
erned.

Guidelines for reporting of Resources and Reserves

9.

Mineral
Resources and Reserve estimation requires
collation of work

carried out by numero
us professional disciplines and
must be based on or

demonstrated by the results of (at least) a Prelimina
ry

Feasibility Study.

The
mineral resources and reserves form the basis for the
National Mineral Inventory
maintained by the IBM. In order to improve the quality of the reporting of the
mineral resources and reserves, the following guidelines should be inv
ariably
applied
:

(a) All licence holders and exploration agencies are

encouraged to provide
i
nformation that is as comprehensive as possible

in Technical Reports on
exploration.

(b) Fundamental data such as commodity price used and cut
-
off grade applied
mu
st

be disclosed.

(c) Problems encountered in the collection of data or with the sufficiency of data

must be clearly disclosed.

(d) Modifying factors applied to estimat
ion
such as
inclusion of

high grades or

estimation arising out of
reconciliation
of lab d
ata extrapolated for the
exploration
must be identified and their derivation

documented.

(e) Tonnage and grade figures should reflect the order of accuracy of the estimate
by

rounding off to the appropriate number of significant figures.

(g) Technical Repo
rts of a Mineral Resource must identify one or more categories
of

Reconnaissance (STD 334),
'Inferred'

(STD 333)
, 'Indicated'

(STD 332)

and
'Measured'

(STD 331)

and
similarly
Technical Reports of Mineral Reserves

must
specify one or both categories of 'Pro
ven'
(STD 111)
and 'Probable'

(STD 122)
.
Categories must

not be reported in combined form unless details of the individual
categories are

also provided.
All
categories
should
always be reported separately.

(h) Technical reports on Resource and Reserve esti
mation

must not be reported in
terms of contained

metal or mineral content unless corresponding tonnages,
grades and mining,

processing and metallurgical recoveries are also presented.

(i)
While in no circumstances should estimates for Resources and Reserv
es be
reported as a combined figure, in unavoidable
cases where estimates for both
Resources and Reserves are

reported, a clarifying statement must be included
that clearly indicates whether

Resources are inclusive or exclusive of Reserves.


(j) In
estimat
ing
Reserve
s,
the
basic data on
Resource
s, where available should be
also invariably included.

(k
) Where Reserve estimates are reported, commodity price projections,

operating costs and mineral processing/metallurgical recovery factors are

important and m
ust be included in Technical Reports.

(l) W
hen reporting a Mineral Reserve mineable by

open pit methods, the waste
-
to
-
ore ratio
should

be disclosed.

(m)
All
Reports
should
refer to the appropriate categories of Resources

until
technical feasibility and eco
nomic viability have been established
for a mineral
estimate
by the

completion of at least a Preliminary Feasibility Study.

(n) Broken mineralized inventories, as an example, surface and underground

stockpiles, must use the same basis of classification out
lined in the
UNFC
.

STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF UNFC

10.1

The entire landmass of the country, where mining activities are possible
and the land is not presently under any other competing land use, maybe divided
into two major categories
-

Non
-
freehold ar
eas and Free
-
hold areas. The non
-
freehold areas would consist of areas that are held under any mineral concession,
and would include such areas which have been applied for grant of prospecting
licence or a mining lease after completion of earlier stage of

exploration activity,
or where an applicant has been selected for grant of a mineral concession and the
concession is yet to be granted, or any such area where the Government has
issued notification reserving the area for conservation or exclusive exploit
ation by
PSUs or such areas where notification has been issued for promotional
exploration by the Government. The remaining areas could be classified as
freehold areas.

Strategy for implementation in n
on
-
freehold areas under mining lease

10.2

In case of n
on
-
freehold areas that are held under a mining lease, in all such
cases where the resources or reserves have not been categorized in terms of
UNFC, the mining lease holder shall be required to categorize his entire lease area
into such areas that are cover
ed under a mining scheme and such area which are
not covered under a mining scheme. In case of areas covered under a mining
scheme the lease holder shall be required to submit details of the exploration
plan in the mining scheme, indicating the annual targ
ets for completion of the
exploration activity.

10
.3

In terms of directives issued to the State Governments vide Ministry of
Mines letter no.10/75/2008
-
MV dated 23
rd

December 2010, whereby
in exercise
of the powers under Rule 27(3) of the M
ineral
C
oncessi
on
R
ules, 1960, all
the
State Government
have been requested to
impose a special condition in all the
existing and future leases in the country for major minerals (excluding coal
minerals) as follows:

“The owner of a mining lease shall:

(a)

ensure that pro
specting work is carried out in his lease area at his own cost
in such mining lease where:

(i)

prospecting has not been done and a Prospecting Report has not
been filed with the Indian Bureau of Mines;

(ii)

the Prospecting Report for the mining lease has been prep
ared in
terms of standards that are materially different or incompatible with
UNFC standards;

(iii)

fresh prospecting work has become necessary for such minerals for
which the threshold values have been revised by the Indian Bureau of
Mines; and

(iv)

fresh prospectin
g is required to prove the depth persistency of the ore
or mineral deposit;

(b)

ensure that prospecting work, if required under clause (a) above, shall be
completed as per the time
-
schedule given below:

Sl no.

Item

Time limit

1

All mining lease with an
a
rea of less than 10
hectares.

Within one year of the imposition of
the condition in the mining lease.

2

All mining leases with an
area more than 10
hectares and less than
50 hectares.

One half of the area within one year of
the imposition of the conditio
n in the
mining lease and remaining half of the
mining lease area within three years
of imposition of condition in the
mining lease.

3

All mining leases with an
area of more than 50
hectares.

The mining lease area to be equally
demarcated for prospecting
work such
that all the prospecting work is
completed in a period of five years
from the date of imposition of the
condition in the mining lease.


(c)

submit:

(i)


yearly report on the progress in the prospecting work alongwith the
expenditure details and

a copy of the interim Prospecting Report,
where the prospecting Report is for a part area (as at serial number
(2) and (3) of the sub
-
clause (b) above; and

(ii)


complete Prospecting Report with a feasibility report at end of the
prospecting Report,

to t
he Chief Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of
Mines, and concerned State Government”.


10.4

Accordingly, all mining lease holders shall be required to adhere to the
timelines mentioned above for reassessment of their resources and reserves in
terms of UNF
C, and report to the IBM as per table given in para 7.1 above.

10.5

The IBM shall closely coordinate with the State Governments for ensuring
imposition of special condition in all the mining leases and monitor the reports
and ensure that all mining lease
holders comply with the provisions of the special
conditions.

Non
-
freehold areas under Prospecting licence and reconnaissance permit

10.1

All the holders of ongoing prospecting licence and reconnaissance permit
shall be required to submit their exploratio
n data in terms of the UNFC to the IBM
or GSI and the State Government. The compliance shall be monitored by the GSI
in terms of the table given under para 5.4 above.

10
.
2

In case of prospecting and reconnaissance operations that have already
concluded an
d data has been filed with the IBM, GSI or State Government, the
IBM in case of prospecting licences and the GSI in case of reconnaissance permit,
shall be required to access the historical data so filed

by the licensees, study the
same and determine wheth
er re
-
assessment of the data is necessary for
compliance with the UNFC. To this effect, the IBM and GSI shall draw out a time
-
bound plan and if necessary shall also engage experts to complete this job on a
turn
-
key basis.

Strategy for Free
-
hold areas

11
.
1

It is estimated that the total mineral potential area in the country is 5.70
lakh square kms, which is a sizeably large area. Leaving out the areas under
concessions, the remaining area can be divided broadly as greenfield areas, where
no exploration has
been conducted till now, and all such areas where in terms of
the provisions of the MMDR Act exploration has been or is being conducted by
either GSI, State DGMs, or authorized Government agencies without obtaining a
licence, the only requirement being tha
t the area should be notified by the State
Government for this purpose.

11.2

In such areas, where the GSI, State Governments or Government agencies
are undertaking exploration activities, it would be mandatory for such agencies to
file the data in UNFC sy
stem in digitized format, and upload the same on their
websites for wider dissemination, unless State Government is proposing to
reserve such areas for further State led exploration.

11.3

However, on areas that have already been explored in the past, one
important challenge that is eminent is that the historical data generated is not
well documented or indexed, and is generally existing in non
-
digitized format.
Such data could be classified generally as follows:

(i)

baseline data (geoscience survey data)

(
ii)

pre
-
exploration data (comparable with reconnaissance data)

(iii)

exploration data (comparable with prospecting data)

11
.4

While the baseline data is largely lying with the GSI, it shall be mandatory
for the GSI to inventories all such data and digitiz
e the same in a time bound
manner as part of Mission I of reorganised mandate of the GSI. Each region of the
GSI would submit its annual target, and the same would be completed either in
-
house or through out
-
sourcing to experts in the field. To this effect

the GSI should
identify a list of empanelled experts selected through competitive bidding process
and appointed by each region for each job on case
-
to
-
case basis.

11.5

In case of pre
-
exploration data, the GSI would not only inventorise the data
available

with it, but also coordinate with the State Governments and other
Government agencies to prepare a complete inventory of such data available in
the country. Simultaneously the GSI would commence a systematic programme
to convert the historical data into

UNFC system based data in digital mode and
make available the same on its portal. Alongwith this the GSI would set up
Training programmes at State level for developing capacities in the State
Directorate for converting the data into UNFC system. Needless
to mention, the
regional offices of GSI would also outsource this work to empanelled experts as
part of Mission II activities for each year. The progress would be reported and
monitored in the CGPB.


11.6

In respect of the exploration data, the IBM, which
is the custodian of
National Mineral Inventory, shall identify such historical data that needs to be
converted, and in a phased annual program, as reflected in the annual targets,
convert the data into UNFC system. IBM should invariably involve the State
G
overnments in the exercise, which could be done through a Centrally Sponsored
Scheme or Project mode.

12.

To sum up it is expected that these guidelines would help the prospector
and the regulators in achieving the objective enshrined in the National Mine
ral
Policy, 2008, which enunciates that it will be ensured that regional and detailed
exploration is carried out systematically in the entire geologically conducive
mineral bearing area of the country using state
-
of
-
art techniques in a time bound
manner an
d minerals being a valuable resource the extraction of mineral
resources located through exploration and prospecting has to be maximised
through scientific methods of mining, beneficiation and economic utilisation.


****


A
nnexure

III

Statement showing pe
ndency of mineral concession applications, lease/ licence
execution cases, and renewal applications, as per quarterly reports received from the
State Governments.








(Position as on 15.3.2012)

S.
No.

Name of the State

Quarterly
Report
received
up to

No. of pending Applications

No. of
pending

lease/
licence
execution
cases

No. of
pending
renewal

appli
-
cations







RP

PL

M
L

TOTAL





1

Andhra Pradesh

Sept
-
10

32

1697

2796

4525

136

71

2

Chhattisgarh

Sept
-
11

65

191
9

738

2722

17

16

3

Goa

Dec
-
11

12

660

93

765

0

379

4

Gujarat

Dec
-
11

14

1303

3607

4924

40

516

5

Haryana

Dec
-
11

7

204

419

630

10

19

6

Himachal Pradesh

Sept
-
11

2

15

11

28

2

21

7

Jharkhand

Dec
-
11

69

773

3049

3891

327

426

8

Karnataka

Dec
-
11

133

2840

16378

19351

28

201

9

Kerala

June
-
10

10

0

43

53

43

7

10

Madhya Pradesh

Sept
-
11

59

4273

708

5040

25

33

11

Maharashtra

Dec
-
11

13

149

57

219

67

41

12

Orissa

Dec
-
11

33

1884

1695

3612

0

158

13

Rajasthan

Sept
-
11

0

121

0

121

0

0

14

Tamil Nadu

Sept
-
11

9

72

1072

115
3

1

177

TOTAL

458

15910

28149

47034

696

2065



Annexure IV


Minutes of the meeting taken by Secretary (Mines) on Friday, the 2
nd

March, 2012
to discuss the issue relating to ’MOU’ as a special reason under Section 11 (5) of
the MMDR Act, 1957, in the co
ntext of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in
Sandur case.




Secretary (Mines)
took a

meeting with the State Governments on Friday, the 2
nd

March,
2012 to discuss the issue relating to ’MOU’ as a ‘special reason

under Section 11 (5) of the
MMDR Act, 1957
, in the context of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment dated 13.9.2010 in M/s
Sandur case.


2.


The State Secretaries in charge of Mining and Geology in Andhra Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh
-

the States which
have the most

n
umber of MOU cases falling under
S
ection 11 (5) of the Act
-

were invited to attend the
meeting. Joint Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs was also invited to attend the meeting.
The under
-
mentioned officers/State representatives attended:


Ministry o
f Mines

1.

Shri Vishwapati Trivedi, Secretary


In the Chair

2. Shri G. Srinivas, Joint Secretary (M&R)

3. Shri R.K. Malhotra, Director

4. Shri C.K. Rawat, Under Secretary


State Governments


1.

Shri S.K. Mishra,

Secretary, Mineral Resources Depar
tment,

Government of Madhya Pradesh.


2.

Shri G. V. Kongawad,

Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries,

Government of Karnataka.

3.

Shri S.I. Minz,

Additional Director (Mines),

Government of Jharkhand.


4.

Shri Rafi Ahmed,

Joint Director, Industries and Com
merce Department,

Government of Andhra Pradesh.


3.

The Government of Chhattisgarh regretted their inability to attend the meeting, due to
preoccupation with the ongoing session of the Vidhan Sabha. There was no representation
from the Department of Legal

Affairs.


4.

Secretary (Mines) recalled that in the meeting of the Central Coordination
-
cum
-
Empowered Committee on Mineral Development and Regulation (CEC) held on 16.1.2012,
some State Governments had expressed concern over delay in disposal of MOU cases

coming
under section 11 (5) on the ground they were impacted by the Supreme Court’s judgment dated
13.9.2010 in the Sandur case. As the matter was not a part of the agenda for that meeting, it
could not be discussed in much detail then. Therefore, a sep
arate meeting had to be convened
with the State Governments that were most affected by the issue, to facilitate them to express
their views on the subject.


5.

Initiating the discussions, Dir (RM) gave a brief background of the matter, as brought out
in th
e agenda note circulated among the participants. Briefly, the Ministry of Mines had issued
detailed guidelines on 24th June, 2009 for processing of mineral concession cases under the
MMDR Act and Rules thereunder. The guidelines
inter alia

provide that t
he State Governments
need to adopt a uniform and publicly stated Policy on ‘Special Reasons’ while recommending a
later applicant in a non
-
notified area. All States were accordingly, advised to furnish a copy of
the applicable policy to this Ministry, and
make specific reference to that policy if they seek to
apply the provisions of Section 11(5) of the MMDR Act. Since no State Government formulated
policy on ‘special reasons’ under Section 11(5) for a considerable length of time, the Ministry, in
due cons
ultation with the State Governments, formulated guidelines dated 9.2.2010 on ‘special
reasons’ for invoking the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act. One of the ‘special reasons’
contained in the guidelines dated 9.2.2010, relate to MoU cases, where a pl
ant/industry has
already been set up on the basis of an MoU but mineral concession has not yet been granted as
per the MoU. Based on the experience gained by the Ministry over a period of time in dealing
with the proposals falling under section 11(5)
in

M
oU

cases
, a need was felt for a limited
amendment to the existing guidelines on ‘Special Reasons’. It was proposed that clause 5 of the
‘special reasons’ listed in the guidelines dated 9.2.2010 pertaining to MoU cases needed some
amendment. The existing r
equirement on the part of an applicant to have set up a plant/
industry
in

MoU
cases
was proposed to be restricted to ML proposals only. For RP and PL
proposals, the requirement of setting up of a plant
i
n MoU
cases
was proposed to be done away
with and r
eplaced with the provisions that effective steps should have been taken by the
recommended applicant for setting up a plant/industry on the basis of MoU.


6
.


Meanwhile, the Ministry’s attention was also engaged in Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
judgment in Sand
ur case on 13.9.2010 wherein it has been
inter alia

held that ….
‘The State
Government has no authority under the MMDR Act to make commitments to any person that it
will in future grant a mining lease in the event that person makes investment in any projec
t…..’.


7
.

While studying the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court, it was
inter alia

felt
that that though the above observations of the Supreme Court were in the context of cases
relating to notified areas, their applicability to both kind of ca
ses i.e. notified as well as non
-
notified areas needed to be
examined
.
T
he
refore, the

Department of Legal Affairs and Shri
Mohan Parasaran, Ld. Additional SG

were consulted in the matter. Ld. Additional SG opined
that since the views of the Union of Indi
a could not be put forth due to non
-
serving of the SLP on
the Ministry

of Mines, and also in the light of the views of the Ministry on each of the findings of
the Supreme Court, a review petition may be filed in the case.

Ac
cordingly
, t
he Ministry of Mines

has filed a review petition before the Supreme Court against its judgment dated 13.9.2010 in the
Sandur
case
.
W
ith regard to ‘MOUs’
, t
he submissions made by the Ministry in the review
petition are as under:


“…So long as MOUs are entered into in a transp
arent and objective manner, in
furtherance of the Mineral and Industrial Policies, and there was no commitment
for a specific deposit and the application for grant of a concession is processed in
accordance with the provisions of the Act, there should be n
o bar on taking
cognizance of the content of the MOU for purposes of determination of inter
-
se
merit among various applicants, under section 11 (3) (or appropriately with
regard to special reasons under section 11 (5) though that is not the sub
-
section
at
issue).”


8
.

The Department of Legal Affairs, to whom the issue pertaining to limited amendment
in

the guidelines dated 9.2.2010 on MoU in the context of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated
13.9.2010 was referred for advice, have observed that since the Mi
nistry has filed a review
petition, it would be advisable to wait for the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
.


9
.

In the above background, Secretary (Mines) requested the State Governments to give
their considered views on the applicability of ‘MOU’ as

one of the ‘special reasons’ under
Section 11 (5), in the
light

of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Sandur case.


10
.

Shri S.K. Mishra, Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Government of Madhya
Pradesh

observed that the Supreme Court’s judgment g
ave an interpretation of the applicability
of Rule 59 and Rule 60 of the MCR 1960, especially, premature applications under Rule 60, as
well as interpretation of the Sections 11 (2), 11 (3) and 11 (4). However, he said, in no way it
affected the applicabi
lity of the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act. As regards Supreme
Court’s observations that the

State
Government had no authority under the MMDR Act to make
commitments to any person, Shri Mishra observed that th
e
se observations needed to be studied
in
entirety

of the issue at hand and not in isolation. Since grant of concession in Sandur case
pertained to a previously held area which was notified by the State Government, the applicability
of Section 11(5), which is meant exclusively for non
-
notified

areas, was not justified.


11.


Shri G. V. Kongawad, Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, Government of
Karnataka, gave a brief account of the actions being taken by the State Government in the light
of various orders passed Hon’ble Supreme Cou
rt including those in the Sandur case as well as
the ones relating to illegal mining in the State. With regard to MOU cases, Shri Kongawad said
that signing MOUs was a part of the stated policy of the State Government, and such cases
were considered under

Section 11 (3) of the Act. He observed that MOU cases were also
covered under Section 11 (5) in line with the guidelines dated 9.2.2010 issued by the Ministry of
Mines. With regard to the Sandur case, he said that the subject area in that case was a
pre
viously held area, and as such it attracted the provisions of Rule 59 and 60 of the MCR,
1960. He opined that the Sandur judgment essentially pertained to a notified area, and its
applicability should not extend to non
-
notified areas.


1
2
.

Referring to
the
Ministry’s guidelines dated 9.2.2010 as well as the
State Mineral Policy
of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Secretary (Mines) observed that
both these documents

included ‘special reasons’,
and

allowed, among other

parameters
,

MOU


cases to be
consid
ered

under Section 11 (5) of the Act. He, however, said that in notified areas falling
under Section 11 (2) and 11 (4) of the Act, the State Governments needed to strictly adhere to
the
provisions

of Section 11 (3).

1
3
.

Shri Rafi Ahmed, Joint Director, In
dustries and Commerce Department, Government of
Andhra Pradesh, said that a perusal of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case relating
to M/s Sandur revealed that the Court’s judgment
has

confined its operation to the extent of the
provisions to deci
de the merit criteria of the applicants as per section 11 (3) of the Act.
However, the same provisions could not be taken for implementation as ‘special reasons’ under
Section 11 (5) of the Act.


1
4
.

Attention of the participants was, in particular, drawn

to paras 20), 37), 48) and 50) of
Supreme Court’s aforesaid judgment, which are extracted below:


“20
)
…..In the said proceedings, two irrelevant points were taken into account; namely, (i)
whether or not the applicant holds a mining lease in the State and

(ii) the amount of their past
investment in steel plant. It is equally true that the proceedings recommended in favour of
Jindal and Kalyani was justified by the special reasons specifically stated at the very end in
terms of Section 11(5)…”.


“37)…..
T
he proceedings of the Chief Minister and the recommendation dated 06.12.2004 are
contrary to the Scheme of the MMDR Act as they were based on Section 11(5) which had no
application at all to applications made pursuant to the notification dated 15.03.2003
….
”.


“48)…..
The State Government has no authority under the MMDR Act to make commitments to
any person that it will, in future, grant a mining lease in the event that the person makes
investment in any project. Assuming that the State Government had made an
y such
commitment, it could not be possible for it to take an inconsistent position and proceed to notify
a particular area
….
.
”.


“50)…..As observed earlier, commitments made by the state Government cannot be a relevant
factor for grant of lease in the tee
th of the consideration set out in section 11 (3). If that was to
be the sole criterion, the State Government ought not to have notified the area vide ‘Held Area
Notification’ dated 15.03.2003…..”
.


15.

The participants felt that the above cited observati
ons of Hon’ble Supreme Court made
ample allowance for the State Governments to enter into a commitment, and facilitate setting
-
up
of an industry or a plant in cases pertaining to a non
-
notified area under Section 11 (5), though
not so for a notified area u
nder sections 11(2) and 11 (4).


16.

All the State representatives were unanimous in saying that the entire judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court including the observations relating to commitment
s

by

the State
Governments
to any person,
related
only
to notif
ied areas, and therefore, it had no relevance
and applicability to
section
11(5) cases, for which the Ministry of Mines
’ guidelines

dated
9.2.2010 were already in place. There was also a genuine concern

among the participants

that
a large number of mineral

concession cases coming within the scope of ‘MOU’ under section 11
(5) were pending due to indecisiveness on this count. Secretary (Mines) agreed to the State
representatives’ suggestion that the matter may be taken up with the Department of Legal
Affair
s

(DLA)

afresh, seeking their advice and guidance in the light of the deliberations in the
meeting. It was also agreed that a suitable amendment may be sought in the review petition
filed by the Ministry against the Supreme Court’s judgment
, in consultati
on with the DLA
.


1
7
.

It was further decided that subsequently, subject to DLA’s concurrence in the Ministry’s
move for seeking amendment in the review petition, the issue regarding suitably revising the
guidelines dated 9.2.2010 may be taken up. In this c
ontext, the State Governments’
representatives suggested that ‘MOUs’ should not be made applicable in RP cases, where an
applicant, who is largely sole, is not expected to make investments towards setting
-
up of a
plant. They also suggested that in PL and
ML cases too, the ‘MOU’ aspect should be made
applicable keeping in view reasonableness, and practicability in processing mineral concession
proposals. Secretary (Mines) assured that this would be given due consideration.


18.

The meeting ended with

a

vo
te of

thanks to the Chair.

….