Orissa High Court Directs State to Invoke Mining Rule for Optimal Iron Ore Extraction
The Orissa High Court has come down heavily on the state government for permitting large-scale underutilisation of iron ore mines. In a significant ruling on Thursday, the court directed the authorities to invoke Rule 12(1)(ee) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 to ensure optimum mineral extraction and prevent further losses to the public exchequer.
PIL Highlights Years of Underperformance
Disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Bhubaneswar-based NGO Citizen's Action Forum, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman observed that despite approved mining plans and environmental clearances, several iron ore blocks have consistently failed to achieve even minimum production levels for multiple years.
The bench noted that the PIL cited continuous underperformance across numerous mining leases, leading not only to substantial statutory revenue losses but also adversely impacting livelihoods in mining-dependent regions of Odisha.
Court's Directive for Immediate Corrective Action
Directing immediate corrective measures, the bench ordered the state government to invoke Rule 12(1)(ee) of the Concession Rules to ensure optimum utilisation of iron ore mines through the National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC), a central public sector undertaking. The court emphasized that such intervention would not only improve production but also "eradicate any burden on the government exchequer."
Additional government advocate Debashis Tripathy represented the state during the proceedings.
State's Admission and Judicial Concern
The high court took serious note of a state affidavit that admitted "almost majority of the mining lease holders have not secured the optimum extraction of the iron ore." The affidavit further revealed that in some instances, penalties had been imposed but were kept in abeyance due to interim court orders.
Characterizing the situation as a case of "patent underutilisation of the mines by the mining lease holders," the bench expressed concern that the state had failed to invoke Rule 12(1)(ee), which specifically allows government intervention in cases of persistent default.
Substantial Financial Impact Revealed
Recording the petitioner's submission regarding the financial impact, the bench stated that the average minimum utilisation shortfall had resulted in losses "roughly amount to rupees four thousand crores" to the state treasury. This staggering figure underscores the economic significance of the court's intervention.
Statutory Duty of the Government
Emphasizing the binding nature of statutory provisions, the court declared, "The provisions contained in the statutory framework cannot be put to idle or a dead letter." The bench added that once the government incorporates a provision like Rule 12(1)(ee), "it casts a statutory duty on the Government to activate the said provision in the larger public interest."
The judges underlined that Rule 12 contains terms and conditions that are "inhered and ingrained in every mining lease," and failure to comply with these obligations requires the state to take decisive action. "The state cannot remain static but should invoke such provision in the manner provided therein," the bench firmly stated.
This landmark judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring that natural resources are utilized optimally for public benefit while holding authorities accountable for implementing statutory provisions designed to prevent revenue losses and promote responsible mining practices.
