MINING SCAM IN KARNATAKA – AN
INSIGHT
By Shivakumar
Mining has been going on in Karnataka since 1950’s, but it
gained momentum since the year 2001 when the demand of iron ore increased due
to Chinese steel mill’s requirement. The
initial demand from Chinese steel mills were attributed to the Beijing Olympics
for which huge infrastructure was required and China decided to set up its own
steel mills to produce steel to be used in this Olympics without depending on
imported steel mainly from Japan.
Japanese steel makers were the traditional buyers of Indian
Iron ore in the form of Pellets and not in the raw form. The Chinese invented
the technology to extract steel from Iron ore fines which was thrown away as
“waste” in India. Indian steel makers
were using Iron ore “lumps” to produce Sponge Iron or DRI (Directly Reduced
Iron) which was further converted into steel. So, all steel makers including
SAIL were utilising only the Iron ore “Lumps” for making steel. Still, India does not have the “Technology”
to make steel from Iron ore fines.
One should bear in his mind that in any Iron ore mine, the
Iron ore lumps and fines are produced in the ratio of 30:70, i.e. 30% lumps and
70% iron ore fines. So, all the miners have been dumping 70% fines which
contains high Fe content as mere “waste” dumps.
Due to the arrival of Chinese steel mill buyers in the
Indian Mining scenario, suddenly there was a demand for these so-called “waste”
dumps. Chinese steel mills had the technology to convert these “waste” iron ore
fines to steel. Here, really the Steel
Industry of India should hang their face in shame for not developing a suitable
technology to convert Iron ore fines into steel.
Even now in 2011, No
one from the Steel Industry in India is remotely even trying to put up a Plant
which can utilise these Iron ore fines to steel. This is SHAMEFUL.
Now, coming to our story of Karnataka Mining industry, the
mine owners started making money by selling Iron ore fines, which was till now
a “waste “ and literally a burden for
them to manage. Remember, each mine has to find a place to dump this “Precious Waste”. So, lot of this precious
waste of Iron ore fines was literally dumped alongside roads, dry and waste
lands and also along railway tracks in Bellary and Hospet . Suddenly, when the Chinese demand started for
these “precious waste” iron ore fines, everyone, from rag picker to rich in
Bellary region started to dig out these waste fines which were being dumped for
years together along highways and rail tracks and other places and No official
could stop this “digging”, since they did not had enough facility to monitor
this sudden activity.
All the mine owners, who were in the “RED” until recently,
who could hardly manage to pay their employees and had huge dues towards the
Royalty and Dead Rent payable to the Karnataka State Govt. , suddenly starting
minting money. Chinese were running
against Time since they had to complete all the projects before Beijing
Olympics. So, there was this Frenzy let out in the regions of Karnataka which
are Iron ore rich.
Reader has to understand this phenomenon which was the main
trigger for the Boom in the Iron ore mining Trade.
The Central Govt. Announced the
National Mineral Policy in the year 1993 which had the LIBERALISATION AND
GLOBALISATION POLICY as its basis. In
this policy, a decision was made to De-reserve
vast areas for Mining operations by Private Companies. Accordingly, each state was asked to submit
the details of the land which shall be de-reserved for Mining by Private
companies.
In 1993, the Principal Secretary
of Dept. of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of Karnataka was asked to submit the
proposal to de-reserve the lands for Private Mining. The Dept. of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of
Karnataka took 6 years to identify the lands where private mining can be
allowed. The work of identification and de-reservation
of potential Mineral deposits got completed
by the year 1999, during the Congress rule of Shri.S.M.Krishna.
The then Mines & Geology Minister Shri.V.Muniyappa submitted the list
of Blocks to be de-reserved for private mining to the Cabinet. The interesting thing to be noted in this
issue is: the Mines Minister did not even consult his own Principal Secretary
on de-reservation, instead he directed the Director of Mines & Geology
Dr.Basappa Reddy to submit the list of Blocks to be de-reserved. This official, even without taking reports
from his field officers, on his own decided the blocks to be de-reserved. (Block
Nos. 5, 13, 14, 15. 16, 17 and 18A). The strange thing was, all these Blocks
were “reserved forest areas”. The Minister of Mines &
Geology Shri. V.Muniappa and the Director Dr.Basappa Reddy were severely
indicted by the Hon’ble Lokayukta Shri. Santosh Hegde in his interim report
dated 18th December,2008 submitted to the state government. But, in the Final report, these names never
find any mention and the Media also coolly
ignored this serious lapse by the Lokayukta.
So, it was during the Congress Rule under S.M.Krishna, this
“Himalayan Blunder” of De-reserving Forest Areas for Private Mining was
decided. While justifying this
de-reservation of Forest Areas,
the then Government lead by S.M.Krishna told a LIE that
these areas are “Bayalu Seeme” meaning plain agricultural lands and NOT Forest
areas.
The details of the Blocks that were de-reserved are as
follows:
Block proposed for de-reservation Forest areas
therein
Block - 5………. Kukwadi
Ubrani State forest and
Hadikere
East State forest
Block 8………… Jedikatte Reserve forest and
Minor
forest.
Block 9……….. Hadikere
East State forest and
Kukwadi
Ubrani State forest
Blocks-13,14,15 and 17… Ramgad Reserve forest,
Joga R.F. Gunda
R.F., Hospet R.F. and Donimalai Reserved forest.
Block -18C……………… Gullahalli
State forest and
Nandagudi
State forest.
Block 22……………….. Bolegoudanakatte
Tiger Reserve
Reserve
forest and
Chikkanahalli Preserve
forest.
Block24………………..
Kolalbore
State forest
Block 25……………….
Gowdanagere
State forest.
Block 27……………….
Jogimatti
State forest.
Block 29 ………………
Kudure
Kanive Kaval State forest.
Lakkahalli
State forest
Block 40………………. Bolegoudanakatte
Tiger Reserve
Reserve
forest and
Chikkanahalli Preserve
forest.
Public has been hoodwinked by
the then Congress Government led by S.M.Krishna by de-reserving reserve forests
and state forests for private mining, which was the starting point for all “ILLEGAL”
Mining.
In the Interim report submitted
to the state government in December 2008, this fact did find mention in the
report. But, surprisingly, the Hon’ble Lokayukta did not find S.M.Krishna, his
Minister V.Muniyappa and Dr.Basappa Reddy guilty of opening the forest areas
for private mining in his Final Report. The Reader can understand what could
have transpired between December 2008 and July 2011, for Hon’ble Lokayukta Not
to include the names of S.M.Krishna and his Minister in the Final Report.
BJP GOVERNMENT’S FIRM RESOLVE TO STOP ILLEGAL
MINING
On the other hand, I would like to point out the
commitment of BJP Govt. to stop mining in forest lands. The below mentioned
news article shall throw some light on this.
Karnataka
opposes govt’s decision to approve Ramgad mining project
New Delhi, March 24, 2011: Karnataka has opposed the
central government's recent decision to approve Ramgad Minerals and Mining
project, without consulting the state government. Karnataka said that
bypassing the state government, where the mining project is located, will
become an unhealthy precedent and sought immediate cancellation of the approval
for the mining project in Bellary. The latest move by the BJP-led Karnataka
government has put the 335 hectares iron-ore mining project in the Bellary
district under a scanner. "There is a ban imposed on forest mining leases
by the government in Bellary district. The Ramgad Minerals case cannot be
treated on a different footing," said the Karnataka government in its
letter to the environment ministry. Earlier this week, the Orissa government
filed a case in the Supreme Court challenging the environment ministry's
decision to stop bauxite mining on the Niyamgiri Hills in Kalahandi. The
environment ministry has found itself at crossroads after allowing companies to
go for mining projects in forest areas. Recently, Jairam Ramesh had overruled
negative reports from the ministry's forest advisory committee and cleared the
Steel Authority of India to mine iron ore at the Chiria mines in Jharkhand. The
Karnataka government in its letter argued that it is the state government's
responsibility to examine whether the user agency has complied with norms
stipulated by the environment ministry, as both mineral wealth and the forest
belong to the state government. It said that there are boundary disputes
and a reference has been made to the Karnataka Lokayukta in this case. Jairam
Ramesh had defended his decision in the case of Chiria mines and said that the
forest advisory committee will continue to focus on bio-diversity-related
issues and concerns. "While as minister I will have to necessarily take a
broader view, but placing on record in a complete manner the reasons for taking
that view," he had said.
(Source:http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/indl-goods-/-svs/metals-mining/karnataka-opposes-govts-decision-to-approve-ramgad-mining-project/articleshow/7777734.cms)
Scam pertaining to
“Transfer” of Mining Leases:
With the demand for Iron ore
fines increasing every day, there was literally a scramble to get hold of a
Mining Lease in the Iron ore Belt of Karnataka.
Every company backed by Politicians especially from the Congress party,
started to find ways to acquire a mine. In this scramble for mines, several Benami companies backed by Corrupt Politicians
who were at the Helm of affairs during that time, devised two ways to enter
mining.
They are: 1) Transfer of Mine
from a Legal Mining Lease Holder and
2) Taking over a mine as a
“Raising Contractor” ( Back door entry)
We shall look in detail reg. these two :
a) Transfer
of Mining Lease:Transfer
of Mining leases are governed by Rules 37, 37A and 46 of the Mining Concession Rules framed under
the M&M (D&R) Act.
Quote: The said Rules read thus:-
“37. Transfer of lease:- (1) The lessee
shall not, without the previous consent in writing of the State Government and
in the case of mining lease in respect of any mineral specified in Part A and
Part B of the First Schedule to the Act, without the previous approval of the
Central Government –
a.
assign,
sublet, mortgage or in any other manner, transfer the mining lease, or any right,
title or interest therein, or
b.
enter
into or make any bonafide arrangement, contract or understanding whereby the
lessee will or may be directly or indirectly financed to a substantial extent
by, or under which the lessee’s operations or undertakings will or may be
substantially controlled by, any person or body of persons other than the
lessee.
Provided further that where the mortgagee is
an institution or a Bank or a Corporation specified in Schedule V, it shall not
be necessary for the lessee to obtain any such consent of the State Government.
(1A) The State Government shall not give its
consent to transfer of mining lease unless the transferee has accepted all the
conditions and liabilities which the transferor was having in respect of such
mining lease.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions
of sub-rule (1) the lessee may, transfer his lease or any right, title or
interest therein to a person who has filed an affidavit stating that he has
filed an up-to-date income-tax returns, paid the income tax assessed on him and
paid the income tax on the basis of self-assessment as provided in the Income
Tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961), on payment of a fee of five hundred rupees to the
State Government:
Provided that the lessee shall make
available to the transferee the original or certified copies of all plans of
abandoned workings in the area and in a belt 65 meters wide surrounding it ;
Provided further that where the
mortgagee is an institution or a Bank or a Corporation specified in Schedule V,
it shall not be necessary for any such institution or Bank or Corporation to
meet with the requirement relating to income tax ;
Provided further that the lessee shall
not charge or accept from the transferee any premium in addition to the sum
spent by him, in obtaining the lease, and for conducting all or any of the
operations referred to in rule 30 in or over the land leased to him;
(3) The State Government may, by order
in writing determine any lease at any time if the lessee has, in the opinion of
the State Government, committed a breach of any of the provisions of sub-rule
(1) or sub-rule (1A) or has transferred any lease or any right, title or
interest therein otherwise than in accordance with sub-rule (2);
Provided that no such order shall be
made without giving the lessee a reasonable opportunity of stating his case.
37A.
Transfer of lease to be executed within three months. – Where on an
application for transfer of mining lease under rule 37, the State Government
have given consent for transfer of such lease, a transfer lease deed in Form O
or a form as near thereto, as possible, shall be executed within three months
of the date of the consent, or within such further period as the State
Government may allow in this behalf.
(2) No prospecting licence or mining
lease or any right, title or interest in such licence or lease in respect of
any mineral specified in the First Schedule to the Act shall be transferred
except with the previous approval of the Central Government.”
Unquote
During the regime of the Congress lead by Shri.S.M.Krishna,
the following Transfers were effected Illegally. They are:
a) The
mine belonging to the state owned M/s.Mysore Minerals Limited was ILLEGALLY
transferred to M/s.Madras Cements for a
pittance and leading to the loss to the ex-chequer. This finds mention in the
Interim report submitted by the Hon’ble Lokayukta, but did not got highlighted
in the Final report submitted on 27th July 2011. The reader can
infer their own conclusions from this dubious act of Lokayukta.
Quote from the Interim
Report of Lokayukta (pages 245,246,247 &248):
(1)
Renewal
and Transfer case of Mining Lease No.1742 (New No.2342) for limestone over an
extent of 111.30 Hectare in parts of Kappanayakanahalli and other villages of
Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District.
Transferor : M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited.
Transferee :
M/s. Madras Cements Limited.
(a)
The
Mining Lease No.1742 held by M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited, a Public Sector
undertaking, over an extent of 918.65 hectare for Limestone and dolomite in
parts of Mathod, Kappanayakanahalli, Tarikere, Balenahalli and other villages
of Hosadurga Taluk, was to expire on 7th April 2001. The Principal Secretary to the Government of
Karnataka, Department of Forests, Ecology and Environment advised M/s. Mysore
Minerals Limited to surrender the Forest Area of 813.65 hectare and apply for renewal
for the balance area of 105 hectares.
Accordingly, M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited filed an application for
renewal on 3rd April 1999 for 105 hectare. The Director of Mines and Geology by
Notification No. Director of Mines and Geology/62/MML/ 99/14991-97 dated
31.12.2001/03.01.2002 sanctioned renewal of mining lease over an extent of 111
hectare. Renewed lease deed No.2342 was
executed on 28th March 2002.
(b)
When
the application for renewal was pending the then Minister for Mines and Geology
Sri V. Muniyappa had reportedly sent a note bearing No. Director of Mines and
Geology/1184/99-2000 dated 7/2/2000 advising M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited for
surrender of M.L. No.1742. Copy of the
note is not forthcoming in the file. The Board of Directors opined
that the cost of development of the mine incurred by M/s. Mysore Minerals
Limited was to be assessed and to be recovered from the Cement Company before
considering surrender of the lease. The Technical Consultancy Division of M/s.
Mysore Minerals Limited evaluated the development cost at Rs.3,66,95,515/- for
the entire area of 918.65 hectares.
However, after discussion in a meeting held in the chambers of the
Hon’ble Minister for Mines and Geology on 2/3/2001, it was decided to get the
infrastructure cost evaluated through a neutral assessor agreed to by both the
parties. The neutral assessor evaluated
the cost at Rs.46,78,257/- in respect of 111.30 hectares of leased land. The matter was placed before the 232nd
Board Meeting of M/s. Mysore Minerals Limited held on 10/5/2001. The Board decided that surrender of lease
could be considered after collecting Rs.60 Lakh from M/s. Madras Cements
Limited. The Board further resolved to authorize the Managing Director to move
the Government to approve the transfer of lease No.1742 in favour of M/s.
Madras Cements Limited.
The Congress
Government led by Shri.S.M.Krishna effected 22 (twenty-two) such Transfers resulting to a huge loss of
money to the ex-chequer and this SCAM was NOT highlighted by the Lokaykta in
his Final Report and the Media also coolly ignored this.
b)
Raising Contract: There is
no word “Raising Contract” in the Mines Act, Rules or it did not even find
mention in the Indian Contracts Act.
But, this word has been very widely used in the agreements between the
actual Lease holder and the Company which shall actually engage in mining
operations on his behalf. This is out and
out ILLEGAL. It was during the
successive Congress governments from S.M.Krishna to Dharam Singh, all companies
and individuals who wanted to swindle the mineral wealth entered into mining
industry by “BACK DOOR” literally bypassing all Norms and Laws of the land to
loot the mineral wealth of our country. The state owned Mysore Minerals Limited
became the Pioneer to enter such ‘Raising Contract” Agreements with dubious
companies at very lower rates resulting in huge losses. The following table
shows the quantum of Money swindled during various time period.
Sl. No.
|
Year
|
Quantity produced
(MT)
|
Loss at the rate of
Rs.94.90/- per MT *
(Rs.)
|
Name of the Managing
Director responsible for the loss Sri/Smt.
|
1
|
2000-01
|
2,785
|
2,64,296
|
Company’s Account
|
2
|
2001-02
|
51,203
|
48,59,165
|
I.R. Perumal
|
3
|
2002-03
|
51,800
|
49,15,820
|
Company’s Account
|
4
|
2003-04
|
1,76,918
|
1,67,89,518
|
D.S. Ashwath
|
5
|
2004-05
|
1,52,527
|
1,44,74,812
|
Jeeja Madhavan Hari Singh
|
6
|
2005-06
|
2,29,644
|
2,17,93,216
|
-do-
|
7
|
2006-07
|
1,40,390
|
1,33,23,011
|
Mahendra Jain
|
Total:
|
8,05,267
|
7,64,19,838
|
* Price taken into account is a fraction of the
then prevailing market price.
Source: Interim Report of Hon’ble Lokayukta Justice
Santosh Hegde.
“Novel” way devised by Dharam Singh Govt. to legalise
“Illegal” Mining:
The authority to grant mining
lease is vested in the State Government subject to the terms and conditions
specified in the M&M (D&R) Act
and the M.C Rules. If the lease relates to a private patta land,
prior consent of the land lord is necessary. No mining lease shall be granted otherwise
than in accordance with the provisions of the M&M (D&R) Act and M.C
Rules.
If the mining lease in respect of
a mineral specified in the First Schedule to the M&M (D&R) Act is to be granted, prior approval of the
Government of India is necessary- vide proviso to Section 5(1) of the M&M (D&R) Act. For preventing illegal mining, storage and
transportation of mineral, Section 23-C was introduced in the M&M (D&R) Act in 1999,
empowering the State Government to make Rules for establishment of check posts
for checking minerals in transit, regulating transport of minerals from the
area covered by the mining lease, inspection, checking and storage and search
of minerals at places of excavation, storage or during transit, maintenance of
registers, forms, etc.
Rule 27 of the M.C Rules
specifies the conditions subject to which a mining lease shall be granted. Rule 31 of the M.C Rules provides for
execution of a mining lease deed and a pro-forma of the mining lease deed to be
executed by the lessees is annexed to the M.C Rules – vide Form K of Schedule I
to the M.C Rules. It is said that in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (3) of rule 27 and clause (iii) of
rule 45 of the M.C Rules the State Government has inserted in all mining lease
deeds clause 3A in Part V of Form K pro-forma of mining lease deed providing
for issue of transport permits to lessees which reads thus:-
“3A The lessee/lessees shall not remove any
ore or mineral from the leased area except under and in accordance with the
conditions of a permit issued by the Director Mines and Geology in Karnataka on
payment by the lessee/lessees of the royalty due on the ore or minerals”.
Form K, including aforesaid
clause 3A, of Schedule I of the M.C Rules, being part of the statutory rules,
has the force of law. Clause 3A
authorizes the Director (now designated as Commissioner) of Mines and Geology
(in short Director) to issue transport permit in favour of a lessee. The M.C Rules have not specified any form of
the transport permit. Hence the Director
is free to adopt a suitable form which is not inconsistent with the M&M
(D&R) Act and M.C Rules. Clause 3A
does not provide for issue of transport permit to a person other than a lessee
to transport ore or mineral extracted without a mining lease. Whether the permit under clause 3A could be
issued only by the Director or he could direct one of his subordinates to issue
a permit is not free from doubt because there is no provision in the M&M
(D&R) Act or the M.C Rules which authorizes the Government or the Director
to delegate his powers under clause 3A.
Section 26 of the M&M (D&R) Act deals with delegation of powers. Therefore, it should be held that at present
the Director is not authorized to delegate this power to his subordinates.
Any person, including the owner
of the land, undertaking mining operation without a mining lease is guilty of
an offence punishable under section 4(1) r/w section 21(1) of the M&M
(D&R) Act. Transportation or storage
of ore or mineral or causing it to be transported, without a transport permit,
is an offence punishable under section 4(1A) R/w section 21(1) of the M&M
(D&R) Act. Granting transport permit
in respect of ore or mineral excavated without a mining lease to a person would
be an offence punishable under section 4(1A) R/w. Section 21(1) of the M&M
(D&R) Act. Failure to prosecute a
person who has excavated ore or mineral without a mining lease and to seize or
collect the value of the ore or mineral so excavated as well as failure to
collect rent, royalty or tax from such person as provided in section 21(4),
(4A) and (5) is also a misconduct punishable in disciplinary proceedings.
When Shri.Dharam Singh was the CM
of Karnataka from 28.05.2004, he “Legalised” Illegal Mining. The facts are as follows:
In 2004, Dr.Basappa Reddy, then
Director of Mines and Geology receive application from 82 pattadars from
Bellary-Hospet region for permission to remove Iron ore from their patta lands.
The Director, throwing all laws of the land to the dustbin, approves and orders
his subordinates to issue Permission to carry out Mining in 41 patta lands. He
was succeeded by Mr.Yogesh Tripathi I.A.S. as the Director. When Mr.Tripathi
was holding the charge and Shri.Dharam
Singh was the CM, one Ex-minister Mr.Ramesh writes to the CM as follows:
“Please allow mining in the patta
lands of the remaining applicants since they have to carry out Agricultural
Activity. To carry out farming, they need to remove Iron ore from their lands
which falls from the Hill tops where Mining is being done.”
The reader has to understand the
Funny argument put-forth by an Ex-minister to legalise the Illegal Mining.
Mr.Yogesh tripathi I.A.S., then
Director of Mines of geology and Smt.Latha Krishna Rao, Joint Secretary of
Commerce & Industries department advised the CM that it would be against
Law to give approvals for mining in Patta Lands. Defying these advises, the CM directs his
officials to allow “Illegal” Mining in Patta Land as one-time permission which
will be valid only for 3 months. Also,
to justify his orders, the CM Shri.Dharam Singh cites the following reason:
“The Farmers have incurred huge loans from local financiers and they are
finding it difficult to settle these loans. So
permitting Illegal Mining in Patta Lands is allowed”.
In reality, NO Agricultural
Activity happened and in turn, massive Illegal Mining took place and permits
were obtained from the Department of Mines and Geology and there was literally
No control on the permits issued under this order.
This ‘Illegal’ Mining was
serverally indicted by the Lokayukta in his interim report submitted during
December 2008.
Shri.S.M.Krishna’s Role in selling High value Iron ore from Mysore
Minerals Limited (MML)
When the “Boom” for Iron ore
exports started in 1999, Shri.S.M.Krishna was the CM of Karnataka. He
encouraged the state owned MML to sell its iron ore fines at dirt cheap rates
to all and sundry, which was exported at huge prices by private players. When PSU’s like NMDC and MMTC is exporting
directly, one can’t understand why MML could not have exported to gain the
profits for the Government, that too under an Harvard Educated Economist like
Shri.S.M.Krishna. In fact, the CAG
had severely indicted MML for incurring huge losses. One such company which got huge favours was
M/s.Balabhanu enterprises which was owned by a powerful Congress Politician
from AP Mr.Balashourie, who was very close to the ex-CM of AP
Shri.Y.S.Rajashekar reddy.
Another company which was
allotted a mine was M/s.Maris Cements, owned by
the then Minister in DMK Government Shri. PongalurPalaniswamy from
Coimbatore.
These 2 deals
finds mention in the interim report of the Lokayukta, but hardly finds mentions
in his final report and the Media has ignored this serious lapse.
The iron ore
fines were sole as “waste dumps”, since before this boom, fines were dumped as
“wastes” in all the mines and this came handy for the Political Bosses who were
in the Government to sell it at a
cheaper price. On the contrary, when BJP
govt. took over, all these “waste” dumps were re-classified as “Iron ore fines”
and was sold at Market price, thereby increasing the profits of state owned
MML. The readers are advised to come to their own conclusion on the above
facts.
Details of Iron ore Mining Leases recommended by various Govts.
Since 1999
Shri.S.M.Krishna
|
Shri.Dharam Singh
|
Shri.H.D.Kumaraswamy
|
Shri.B.S.Yediyurappa
|
|
Period
|
1999-2004
|
28.05.2004 – 02.02.2006
|
02.02.2006 –
09.10.2007
|
May 2008 to Till Date
|
No. Of Mining Leases
recommended to GOI
|
16
(Sixteen)
|
42
(Forty-two)
|
44 *
(forty-four)
|
23
(Twenty-three)
|
Total Area (in
Hectares)
|
2,048.07
|
2964.29
|
8042.30
|
991.83
|
Note: * - out of this 44, 22 leases were recommended by H.D.Kumaraswamy
during his last 15 days in power when BJP withdrew its support.
DMK’s role in Karnataka’s Mining:
When UPA 1 was in power, DMK had
its MP Mr.T.R.Baalu as the MoEF and he was granting permissions to all
applicants to mine in the forest lands of Bellary and Chitradurga districts. At
that time, Shri.Dharam Singh was the CM and they had a tacit understanding to
grant mining leases. But there is no Mention of any Central Minister in the
Lokayukta Report. Is this not sounding strange? When the Onus is on
the Centre to approve the Mining Leases.
Shri.T.R.Baalu was
succeeded by the famous 2G scam accused A.Raja as the MoEF. He also granted
many mining leases throwing the environment laws to the wind. But, these people
were not even slightly mentioned in the Lokayukta report. This leads to the necessity to Probe the
Centre’s Role in the entire Mining Scam of Karnataka and it may include the
other states of Orissa, Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand.
The root cause of “ILLEGAL” Mining is the Scale of our Maps used by
various departments like Forest, Mines & Geology, PWD , Revenue and
Irrigation etc; The scale of all these
maps vary. For readers to understand, I
shall give an example.
In a Village map, you can find all the survey numbers clearly demarcated
on the map. Suppose a Taluk consists of 100 villages. Logically speaking, if you join all these 100
village Maps, one should get the taluk map like a jigsaw puzzle. But you will not get the Taluk map. Instead,
these 100 village maps will surpass 2 taluks. In reality, how is it possible. The main culprit is the SCALE of these
maps. Forexample, during British period,
all these maps were drawn. Those times
miles, yards, furlongs were used as parameters of measurements. Now we use “metric”
system like meters, kilometres etc; So,
in taluk offices especially in the revenue department, over the ages, these old
maps were just copied using Tracing sheets without bothering about the “scale” used
in the original map. Hence, this resulted in land disputes and lots of
litigations are pending in several courts of our country which just pertains to
boundary disputes of lands.
Hence the solution is “ONE NATION ONE MAP ONE SCALE”. With the advent of remote sensing and GIS
technology, all Maps should be corrected and One Single Scale should be the
Norm for mapping an area, thereby reducing scores of disputes and giving
clarity to the people of this Nation. The forthcoming Government in 2014 should
take this on priority and start this Mission of One Nation One Scale.
Conclusion:
The Lokayukta Hon’ble Justice
santosh Hegde has submitted a report which conveniently ignores serious charges
against Congress and its allies both in the state and the centre and it is for
the active citizens to force the SC to order a probe into all these
irregularities and especially the centre’s role in the Mining scam
involving all states.
