Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Constitution of Mr. Satyabrata Sahoo Committee:

43. It is pertinent to note the Mr.Bedi committee had conducted inspection under Section 24 of the MMDR Act and during the said period based on the directive of the Tamil Nadu government, the District collectors of the said 3 districts had ordered complete stoppage of mining and stoppage of issuance of transport permits for transport of BSMs pending inspection. But there were reports that inspite of the ban on BSM mining https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and transportation, illicit mining, processing and transportation was taking place with the connivance of the officials. The learned Amicus Curiae through a status report dated 21.11.2016 had brought to the attention of this Court that despite the ban, there was widespread mining of ROM, processing and transporting of BSMs occurring in 3 districts of the State. Relevant document in support of this was filed before the Court.

109. The 2nd Respondent also submitted that no permission was granted to the State Government for inclusion of monazite in the mining lease granted to private party and if at all any mining lease is granted by including Monazite to any private party, the same is without the sanction of the Central government and amounts to violation of Act and Rules.

110. It was contended that the Respondents 8 and 22 have stated that they have not carried out any estimate for monazite as they are not permitted to handle the same and hence no information has been furnished on the estimated reserves of Monazite. However, they have furnished the total quantity of monazite rich tailings for the period from 2007 to 2016 as 80,725.05 M.T. The respondents further have stated that they have never personally assessed the Monazite content in the feed material but provided the data based on the AMD's (Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research – a Unit of the second respondent) report of the second respondent and furnished the percentage of monazite content with respect https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis to each of their mine numbering 34 specifically given in the tabular format (Page Nos.9 to 13 of their letter dated 04.12.2016). Further in page number 14, they have furnished the total ROM (Run of Mine) collected from each of their mine numbering 34 (Page Nos.14 to 16).

171. None of the private party respondents have shown any mistake or discrepancies in the methodology adopted by the Amicus or the calculations leading to the quantum of unlawful/illegal mining and transportation of ROM and BSMs. The objections, if at all very generic and do not repudiate the methodology or the findings.

172. A Three-way method of computing the quantum of illegally mined and transported raw sand (ROM) and BSMs was formulated. These were (1) Quantity transported in excess of quantity of raw sand / BSM permitted to be produced as per approved mining plan/ Scheme of Mining (2) BSM transported is not an approved mineral in the mining plan. be noted.

(3) Transportation of raw sand / BSMs during period when there is no https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis valid Scheme of mining.

173. It can be noted that quantum of ROM/BSMs quantified for all mining lessees is based on objective, rational and replicable methodology. The above method of identifying what constitutes illegal mining was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause's case cited supra, as follows: