New Delhi: The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside the state government’s mining rule that allowed it to allot mining leases bhumidhar (landlords) through a process of recommendation rather than through a competitive bidding process.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi found this rule to be in violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on allocation of 2G spectrum given in 2012.
2012 verdict Government’s policy in granting 2G licenses on first come first serve basis declared illegal. This was declared “unconstitutional and arbitrary” and the court quashed all 122 licenses issued by the then Communications and IT Minister A Raja in 2008.
A bench of Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe said, “We are saddened to see that the manner in which the State is exploiting its valuable resource, it is hardly happening.”
Read also: Four-year-old child in search of mother, family demands CBI probe into Uttarakhand encounter
Revised rules based on ‘minor’ royalty
The order dated 26 September 2022 superseded the state notification issued on 28 October 2021, which amended Rule 3 of the Uttarakhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2001.
The amended rule is allowed a bhumidhar To use excavated soil, sand, rock, stone, gravel, etc. in his property for the purpose of construction on his property.
For such clearance, it said, there was no need to obtain environment clearance and bhumidhar JCB machine can also be used for this.
Although the amended rule provided for payment of royalty on the mined minor mineral, the amount to be paid in such circumstances was much less than the royalty price paid by a contractor who was allotted a mining lease after completing the bidding process. it was done.
A person engaged in the business of operating mining leases for minor minerals in Uttarakhand challenged these amendments in the High Court calling it “unconstitutional”. HC in return, stayed The rules came into force in January this year.
The amendment, his lawyer argued, allowed entry through the back door. bhumidhar In the mining business, without a transparent and public process. Further, the royalty liability of this new category of mining traders was only Rs 70-85 per metric tonne, as against Rs 460 per metric tonne payable by the petitioner and similar mining operators.
Relying on the decision of 2G spectrum, he said the same methodology was being followed in allotment of mining leases in the state as was done in the case of allocation of 2G spectrum.
,Mining Minerals State Property”
In its defence, the state said the new rule is to facilitate clearing of agricultural land that is affected during the rainy season.
It said that since most of the private land in Uttarakhand is located in the foothills adjacent to rivers and other water bodies, the garbage gets accumulated in the said area after the rains. However, strict mining regulations prevented landlords from clearing their land for the construction of houses and agriculture.
Rejecting the State’s explanation, the HC said, “Minor minerals are the property of the State. Merely because the same gets deposited on the land of bhumidhar During the flood season, it does not become the private property of bhumidhar,
The court said it supported the state’s purpose behind the amendment, however, did not approve of the manner in which it was intended to be executed. The bench observed that under the guise of allowing removal of deposits to provide land for cultivation, the State has in fact granted substantial mining leases.
The court also blamed the low royalty rates for mining and commercial exploitation of minor minerals in these private lands and held that the charges were a fraction of the current market rate.
The state could make some concessions to encourage removal of minor minerals from fertile agricultural land. bhumidharSay “up to 10 percent” at the prevailing market rate, the court recommended.
“However, the Respondents may not be so charitable as to give up their rights in minor minerals as compared to the prevailing market rates, and that too at the expense of the Petitioner, who has obtained valuable mining rights,” the court held.
It was also observed that there was no upper limit on the number of licenses in the amended rule. bhumidharwhich may be granted on the recommendation of the Director General, Geology and Mining Unit.
“A fully directed and unrestricted power in this regard is vested in the Director General, Geology and Mining Unit,” the court said.
(Edited by Therese Sudeep)
Read also: ‘Ban construction to save Kedarnath from avalanche’ – what expert panel told Uttarakhand government