Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Mr.Gopal Subramaniun pleading further has submitted that immediately after the order passed by the Honble Division Bench on 12.12.2013 in W.P.(MD) No.1233 of 2012 permitting the petitioners to submit their representations to Mr.Gangandeep Singh Bedi, the Chairperson of the Special Committee within 15 days from the date of order along with necessary documents, the petitioners have submitted detailed representations dated 30.12.2013, bringing to the notice of the second respondent that they are honest mining companies acting within the corners of the law, that they have been carrying on beach mineral mining without any violations for the past 20 years, that even though the unscrupulous competitor Mr.Dhaya Devadas had made several allegations against them in the past 25 years along with various other unscrupulous complainants, all those allegations have been found to be false and rejected, confirming the fact that the petitioners have been carrying on the mining activities strictly in accordance with law at all times. In order to make these facts more clear and transparent, Mr.Gopal Subramaniun also brought to the notice of this Court a table enclosed in the typedset to show that many complaints given by (i) Mr.Dhaya Devadas, (ii) Mr.V.Sudaram, (iii) Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries, (iv) Mr.Dhanushkodi Athithan, M.P., (v) Mr.D.Stephen, (vi) Thyagi S.Ponniah Pillai and (vii) Bengal Bay Beach Moineral on various dates were found to be false, untrue and rejected by the various orders passed by the State Government. In support of his submissions, he also, drawing the notice to page 61 of the typedset, submitted R.P.Athithan, M.L.A., R.Dhanuskodi Athithan, M.P., M.Sundaradas, M.L.A., K.Ramamurthy, M.P. made complaints dated 25.7.91, 6.12.91, 3.7.91, 19.7.91, 31.10.91, 15.11.91, 3.12.91, 10.12.91, 6.9.91, 16.10.91 about the illegal operations, but the State Government found all the complaints false and rejected them vide letter No.46779/MMD.2/90-14 dated 24.12.91. Again when the Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries and Bengal Bay Beach Mineral made one another allegation that V.V.Mineral was doing illegal mining by mining outside leasehold areas, the State Government had already passed an order dated 24.11.2004 rejecting the complaint holding that the allegation of illegal mining was found to be false and V.V.Mineral had all proper licenses and was not violating Atomic Energy Act or Rules nor violating MMDR Act or Rules. But once again Mr.Dhaya Devadas on 1.9.2003 made an allegation regarding violation of the provisions of MMDR Act. Again the said complaint was found to be motivated vide order passed in M1.94850/03 dated 20.10.2003. Mr.Dhaya Devadas repeatedly made another complaint alleging violation of the provisions of MMDR Act and the same was rejected on the ground that the complaint was motivated vide order in M1.52545/03 dated 16.10.2003. Again when Mr.Dhaya Devadas and Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries made a complaint on 22.6.2007, the High Power Committee headed by Department of Atomic Minerals, Department of Atomic Energy and Indian Bureau of Mines officials once again found the allegations to be untrue, on that basis, rejected the complaint. Similarly, all the repeated complaints made by Mr.Dhaya Devadas group for the last 20 years were rejected by the State Government. Therefore, the petitioners in their representation dated 30.12.2013, marking all the complaints and the result of the same, sought the committee to furnish the copies of allegations made against the petitioners with copies of documents, if any, to submit their detailed replies.

17. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

18. Accepting the applications made by both the petitioners for granting mining leases under the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for the mining and winning of beach sand minerals in various coastal areas in Tamil Nadu, the State Government have granted few mining leases. Pursuant thereto, both of them have been carrying on their mining activities. While so, one of the competitors of the petitioners Mr.Dhaya Devadas, the sixth respondent herein filed a public interest litigation petition in W.P.(MD) No.1233 of 2012 on the file of High Court of Judicature at Madurai making allegations against the petitioners that they have been granted leases for mining major minerals and after obtaining mining leases, the petitioners were carrying on illegal mining operations contrary to the terms and conditions prescribed under the leases granted in their favour and that the authorities concerned also have not taken appropriate action against them as per the relevant provisions applicable to such mining activities. In the meanwhile, the first respondent, accepting the recommendations of the Commissioner of Geology and Mining to inspect the mining in all the leased areas of garnet, ilmenite and rutile minerals in Thoothukudi district and to undertake inspection of the mining areas to find out the illegal mining and till the completion of the inspection by the special team, to stop the mining operations in respect of the leases to facilitate the inspections, issued G.O.Ms.No.156, Industries (MMD.1) Department dated 8.8.2013 constituting a special team headed by Mr.Gagandeep Singh Bedi, I.A.S., Secretary, Revenue Department to inspect and verify in terms of Section 24 of MMDR Act whether there is illicit mining with regard to six lessees of minerals-garnet, ilmenite and rutile in Thoothukudi district with a direction to the Assistant Director (Mines), Thoothukudi to stop the issuance of transport permits to the six lessees till the inspections have been completed.

Complaint found to be motivated.

D.Asirvatham Chelliah, Alangulam
9.10.10, 11.10.10
ALLEGATION       Sand mining activities are affecting the local areas        

Collector Lr.No.Rc.No.M2/73404/2010 dt. 19.11.10 & CGM office Lr.No.11688/MM7/2010 dt. 20.12.12. Complaint rejected.

Dhayadevadas Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries 30.3.10 ALLEGATION VVM is indulging in illegal mining, since there are discrepancies between the quantities of stocks as per transport permit and the quantities of stocks as per royalty details Roc.No.M2/13969/2010 dt. 21.3.11. Order of District Collector Transport permits were issued only on physical verification of mined stock and on the collection of advance royalty. All the leasehold area contained replenishable mineral deposits. Therefore, the allegations of illegal mining, are not correct.

Collector Lr.No.M2/61854/2010 dt. 20.9.2010 and CGM Lr.No.10121/MM7/2010 dt. 20.12.2010.

Allegations found to be untrue.

Federation of Indian Placer Industries 13.9.10 ALLEGATION There is illegal mining, since large quantity of minerals is seen to be extracted under the transport permits Collector Lr.No.M2/2171/2011 dt. 21.3.2011 & CGM Lr.No.10447/MM7/2010 dt. 25.12.10.

Order of District Collector There is no illegal mining. The mineral is found in replenishable deposits. The report of the Nagar Committee distinguishes between minerals found in replenishable place of deposits, against minerals found in in-situ rock strata. The allegations of illegal mining are false. The complaint is borne out of enmity. Complaint rejected.