BHUBANESWAR: Rampant illegal mining by several companies is continuing despite the State Government’s claim to have brought it down. The powers that be in the Steel and Mines Department are extending tacit support to the companies involved in the multi-crore mining scam.One of these companies is Arjun Ladha which is reported to be carrying out illegal mining till today without getting environmental and forest clearance. But without taking any effective action against the company, the Steel and Mines Department is reported to be helping it in regularising the illegalities committed in the past.The favour, shown to the company by the department, came to the fore from the public hearing allowed on May 30, part of the process to get the forest and environment clearance for the mining lease over 326.5 hectares in Haromotto Pacheri village in Keonjhar district.This has raised several questions. How can the department allow public hearing when a case is pending in the High Court relating to the cancellation of the same mining lease? Besides, the Steel and Mines Department issued a letter only on May 28 to the Forest and Environment Department with a copy to the Keonjhar Collector informing that the company had violated several laws and the State Government had recommended cancellation of its lease on February 15, 2011. The case is sub judice. The letter maintained that necessary action as per the law should be taken before the public hearing.The fact is that the letter was issued only two days before the public hearing to allow it to be completed. The public hearing would be over by the time the letter reached the Keonjhar Collector. This has raised the question as to how a company which has violated several laws and was involved in the mining scam is being allowed public hearing. Does this not amount to regularisation of irregularities? The letter should have been issued the day the Steel and Mines Department recommended cancellation of the mining lease.The letter states that Arjun Ladha whose mines under deemed extension as per rule 24A (6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, had violated provisions under Section-2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, terms and conditions of lease agreements, Environment Protection Act, 1986, Environment Impact Assessment notification, the provisions of Air (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1981, Water (prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and provisions of regulation-2 of 1956. It was concluded that the lease was liable for determination (read cancellation) under rule 27(5) of the MC Rules, 1960.Arjun Ladha had gone for revision application before the Revisional Authority in the Ministry of Mines on April 26, 2011 against the recommendation for cancellation of the lease. The authority had set aside the recommendation. The State Government had filed a writ application against the order in the High Court on November 29, 2011.Besides, it is alleged that facts were not represented before the Revisional Authority correctly as a result of which the State Government lost the case. In a separate case, Arjun Ladha had approached the High Court for movement of ore seized after the Vigilance acted against the company in the mining scam. The High Court allowed movement of materials. The decision was challenged by the State Government in the Supreme Court. Ladha was allowed by the Supreme Court to move ores raised from the leased area only. But how to separate ores from leased area and illegally mined as it is mixed and in a heap? Sources alleged that the company got favourable judgment as facts were not properly represented by the Government side.It may be noted that the power of attorney holder/operating contractor for Arjun Ladha, RBT and BC Deb is reported to be Shakti Ranjan Dash, close to the powers that be.
Comments
0 comment