01

G From 2008 onwards, the Commission found large quantity difference between production permitted
and that actually produced (with the later being way higher). This extra has been referred to as “ore
retrieved from the old dumps”. The Commission states that this excess production is being extracted
on proxy from the running mines but portrayed as dump handling. This shows lack of inspection and
monitoring.

G Non-compliance of EC conditions, mining laws and lease agreements are other visible issues. The
Commission states that there is air and water pollution beyond tolerance limits especially in areas
Ph: +91-11-29956110 - 5124 - 6394- 6399 Fax: +91-11-29955879

where mine clusters are present.

41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area, New Delhi 110 062, INDIA

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cseindia.org

G Report refers to the 2009-10 Special Task Force of IBM inspection in the state. It states that this report
was not proper and the exercise was a mere eye-wash. Number of complaints received about illegal
mining but no action taken. Report suggests that action should be initiated against officers
Centre for Science and Environment

responsible for their misconduct and dereliction of duties under Conduct Rules.

G Suggested procedure for grant/renewal of lease: a committee consisting of secretaries of mines,

revenue, forest and environment department is to be formed. Also, leasehold rights for mining
should be granted by public auction.

G Encroachment: This is a major problem mainly because mining is being carried out by people who do
not actually have the mine lease in their name. There is encroachment on main rivers/nallahs, etc., as
these are used for transportation of ores. On analysing with google maps, the Commission has found
a large extent of encroachment. For this purpose, any area which did not have the mine lease has
been defined as encroachment. As is the agricultural land where mining is happening but revenue
records have not been regularised as 'for non-agricultural use”. GPS handsets were used to mark out
all the boundary pillars for the leases. Total encroachment identified is 2796.24 ha out of which
578.42 ha is used for illegally extracting mineral (Table on Pg. 5 of Chapter 1A). During survey it was
MINING IN INDIA

observed that most lease holders have not erected boundary pillars or these are wooden instead of
permanent. Also, at many places miners have extracted minerals from outside lease area (502.21 ha
and an estimated amount of 127.2574 tonnes and a loss of Rs349359.288 million). Forest area of
76.21 ha has also been encroached by unknown people without any mine lease. Mining from this 578
ha of area is to be considered as theft of iron ore. The Commission recommends deterrent
punishment by filing criminal cases against the lessees for their criminal misconduct.
Recommendation is also made to take action against the concerned officials of the Mines and Forest
Department.

G The Commission recommends that the State Government should take immediate action to recover
market cost of the iron ore illegally extracted after having proven estimation from outside the
leased areas with exemplary penalty along with criminal cases to be filed against the lessees and
department officials. The cost incurred due to estimation should be recovered from the extractors.

G The Commission refers to a communication dated February 5, 2002 from MoEF to Chief Wildlife
Warden, Goa. In this communication, the MoEF requested the State Government to list out such areas
and furnish detailed proposal for their notification as eco–sensitive areas under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986. This has not been done till date which has allowed mines to operate. The
MoEF sent many reminders after that for the same purpose.

G The Commission refers to a Supreme Court order dated December 4, 2006 to not allow any Temporary
Working Permits for mining in Goa without compliance with the environmental laws, in particular,
the permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Also, the MoEF was directed to refer to the
Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life, under Sections 5 (b) and 5 (c) (ii) of the Wild
Life (Protection) Act, the cases where environment clearance has already been granted where
activities are within 10 km. Zone. In February 2007, MoEF has asked states for such mine leases
granted clearance since January 2004 which fall under this condition. Based on responses received, a
list of 74 mine leases should have been placed before the NBWL but the MoEF has not taken any
decision on this matter which remains pending even today. After the 2006 order, 98 EC approvals
2 0 1 2

have been granted in Goa out of which 5 are for expansion. 61 EC approvals out of these need to be
referred to the NBWL Standing Committee but since this was not done, Commission recommends
that the production should be brought down equivalent to the year 2000 to 2001 to mitigate the
impact of cluster mining on the protected area. Also, these mines are to stop operation and their