Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]latest-news-updates/states-have-no-inherent-power-to-frame-mining-policy-20656.html"/> LATEST NEWS UPDATES | ‘States have no inherent power to frame mining policy’ | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

‘States have no inherent power to frame mining policy’
-The Hindu

 

Act states regulation of mines and mineral development comes within Centre's purview: SC

New Delhi: States have no power to frame a mining policy dehors the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and the Mineral Concession Rules.

Reiterating this point, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed review petitions filed by the Centre, JSW Steel Ltd and others seeking review of the September 2010 judgment in the ‘Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd (SMIOL) vs. State of Karnataka' case.

In the September 2010 judgment, the same Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and H.L. Dattu had said: "It is clear [from the MMDR Act and Rules] that the State government is purely a delegate of Parliament and statutory functionary for purposes of Section 11(3) of the Act, and hence it cannot act in a manner that is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 11(1) of the MMDR Act in grant of mining leases. Furthermore, Section 2 of the Act clearly states regulation of mines and mineral development comes within the purview of the Union Government, and not the State Government."

The Bench had held that the State government had no authority under the MMDR Act to make commitments to any person that it would grant a lease in the event of his/her investing in any project. Assuming that the State government had made any such commitment, it could not take an inconsistent position and proceed to notify a particular area as a mining area. Further, having notified the area, the government could not thereafter honour a purported commitment by ousting other applicants even if they were more deserving.

The Centre contended that the Report of the Committee to Review the Existing Laws and Procedures for Regulation and Development of Minerals had been misquoted in the judgment and this materially affected the verdict.

The Bench while rejecting this argument, however, ordered deletion of a portion of the report which was misquoted in the impugned judgment owing to clerical mistake.

Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: "The error contemplated in the impugned judgment is not one which is apparent on the face of the record; rather the dispute is wholly founded on the point of interpretation and applicability of Sections 11(2) and 11(4) of the MMDR Act. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be a ground for invoking the same." Once the point was already dealt with and answered, the parties would not be entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view was possible under the review jurisdiction.

The Bench said: "In review jurisdiction, the court shall interfere only when there is a glaring omission or patent mistake or when a grave error has crept into the impugned judgment, which we fail to notice in the present case."

In the instant case, the Karnataka government issued a notification on March 15, 2003 in exercise of its power under Rule 59 of the MC Rules reserving certain areas as mining areas and called for applications from the general public for grant of leases and by notifying a large extent of previously held areas as available for grant of mines." The SMIOL filed an application for grant of a mining lease but it was not considered. The Karnataka High Court dismissed petitions challenging the State's action and upheld the notification. The Supreme Court in September 2010 allowed the appeal and directed the Karnataka government to consider all applications afresh in the light of the interpretation of Section 11 of the Act and 35, 59 and 60 of MC Rules and make a recommendation to the Centre within four months.

Dismissing the review petitions, the Bench granted it four months to consider afresh all applications and pass appropriate orders.