GoM set up to ensure transparency in mining

The ordeal on the Draft MMDR Bill 2010,began with the steel ministry launching a no-holds-barred war against the mines ministry nearly 4 months ago arguing that the latter’s move to forsake the system of according prior approval would trigger serious trouble for the mining sector and the mineral-rich states would then be at liberty to grant mineral concessions on their own. The mines ministry firmly held its ground contending that the prior approval mechanism did not serve any purpose and in fact it had to only decide on granting approval to those proposal forwarded by the state governments. Moreover,it failed to address the perpetual problem of delay in granting mineral concessions besides eroding the power of revision by making the Centre a party to the original decision. In fact the matters reached to such a pass that steel minister Virbhadra Singh in a letter reminded his mines counterpart B K Handique that iron ore was the lifeline of the steel industry and has got no use other than steel utilities. “If Mines Ministry is finding it difficult to regulate and manage the process of granting of prior approval of mineral concessions for major minerals,Steel Ministry will be willing to accept taking over this function of grant of prior approval for mineral concessions for iron ore,chrome ore and manganese ore,if the procedure of prior approval is continued,” he wrote.

Then both the ministries fought over the on the sensitive issue of reserving iron ore-bearing areas for the metal PSUs. Mines ministry officials maintain that that reservation of mineral bearing areas for PSUs had number of glaring drawbacks and that “reservation powers go against the principles of a level-playing field,more so against the spirit of Hoda Committee’s recommendations.” But Singh pitched for reserving “specified quantity of mineral resources in favour of PSUs (mining as well as end-users) through the government dispensation route as they “needed continued support in larger public interest.” As if this wasn’t enough,the Law Ministry too jumped into the fray by endorsing the contention of the steel ministry that there was an express need spell out measures in the Draft Bill to contain exports of iron ore by ensuring its conservation. It wrote to Mines Ministry asking it to re-christen the legislation as Mines and Minerals (Conservation,Development and Regulation) Bill 2010. “The legislative department is of the view that the country is likely to lose mineral wealth forever if large scale exports are permitted and for this reason conservation of minerals is to be taken into account. For this reason it has suggested that the title of the draft Bill be re-christened to Mines and Minerals (Conservation,Development and Regulation) Bill 2010,” a law ministry official said.