Category Archives: Uncategorized

குமரியில் திடீர் கடல் சீற்றம் மீன்பிடி துறைமுகம் சேதம் – குடியிருப்பு பகுதிகளில் கடல்நீர் புகுந்தது

picc

தேங்காப்பட்டணம் பகுதியில் நேற்று பயங்கர கடல் சீற்றம் ஏற்பட்டது. இதனால் மீன்பிடி துறைமுகம் சேதம் அடைந்தது. கடற்கரையில் நிறுத்தப்பட்டு இருந்த படகுகளை பதம்பார்க்கும் ராட்சத அலை.

குமரியில் திடீர் கடல் சீற்றம் மீன்பிடி துறைமுகம் சேதம்
குமரியில் நேற்று வழக்கத்திற்கு மாறாக ஏற்பட்ட திடீர் கடல் சீற்றத்தால் தேங்காபட்டணம் மீன்பிடி துறைமுகம் சேதமடைந்தது.
குமரி மாவட்டத்தில் ஆண்டு தோறும் மே மாதம் முதல் ஜூலை மாதம் வரையிலான கால கட்டங்களில் கடல் அலையின் சீற்றம் அதிகமாக காணப்படுவது வழக்கம். தேங்காபட்டணம் கடற்கரை பகுதிகளில் கடந்த சில மாதங்களாக தொடர்ந்து ஏற்பட்ட கடல் சீற்றத்தால் அரையன் தோப்பு முள்ளுர்துறை போன்ற பகுதிகளில் கடலரிப்பால் தடுப்பு சுவர்கள் முற்றிலும் அழிந்து, சாலை துண்டிக்கப்பட்டது. இதனால் பல மாதங்களாக 7 கடற்கரை கிராம பகுதி மக்கள் போக்குவரத்தின்றி தவித்து வருகின்றனர்.
இந்தநிலையில் எப்போதும் இல்லாத வகையில் நேற்று திடீர் என தேங்காபட்டணம் பகுதியில் கடுமையான கடல் சீற்றம் எற்பட்டது. காலையில் தொடங்கிய கடல் சீற்றம் மாலையிலும் தொடர்ந்தது. சுமார் 50 அடி முதல் 60 அடி உயரம் வரையிலும் ராட்சத அலைகள் எழும்பியது. இதனால் ராமன்துறை, முள்ளூர்துறை போன்ற இடங்களில் குடியிருப்பு பகுதிகளில் கடல் நீர் உட்புகுந்து. சிலரது வீடுகளின் உள்ளேயும் கடல் நீர் புகுந்தது. இதனால், வீட்டில் இருந்தவர்கள் வெளியேறினார்கள்.
முள்ளூர்துறையில் அந்த பகுதி மக்கள் பயன்படுத்தும் கல்லறை தோட்டம் ஏற்கனவே சேதமடைந்த நிலையில், நேற்று ஏற்பட்ட கடல் சீற்றத்தில் மேலும் அரிப்பு ஏற்பட்டு அங்கு அடக்கம் செய்யப்பட்டிருந்த பல உடல்கள் கடலில் அடித்து செல்லப்பட்டதாக பரபரப்பாக கூறப்பட்டது. ஹெலன் காலனி பகுதியிலும் இதுபோன்று சாலை மற்றும் கல்லறை தோட்டம் முற்றிலும் சேதமடைந்து கடலில் அடித்து செல்லப் பட்டுள்ளது.
ராட்சத அலைகளால் தேங்காபட்டணம் மீன்பிடி துறைமுக பகுதியில் துறைமுக கட்டுமான பணிகள் சில இடங்களில் சேதமடைந்துள்ளது. அலை தடுப்பு சுவர் பாதுகாப்புக்காக அமைக்கப்பட்டிருந்த கோர்லாக் கட்டைகளை சில இடங்களில் கடல் அலை அடித்து சென்றுள்ளது. இதனால் மீன்பிடி துறைமுகத்தின் அலை தடுப்பு சுவருக்கு ஆபத்து ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது.
Link :
 

“Thorium” and the caption “Nuclear Mine Field”

1. This has reference to an article authored and posted by one Shri Srinivasan Kalyanaraman on the blog http://www.thecitizen.in/News Detail.aspx? under the labels: “Thorium” and the caption “Nuclear Mine Field”: Jaya Government breaks rules to allow private mining of Atomic Minerals. The author has invited comment on the contents of the article.

2. In deference to his wishes I would like to offer my detailed comments.

3. Before delving at length into the details, I wish to introduce myself as Dr.T.Anitha, a pro-active Environmental Bio-technologist possessing post-graduate degree and doctorate in Environmental Bio-technology and has good many years of experience in this field. Besides, having been associated with this fascinating field I am very well acquainted and conversant with the statutory provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act 1957, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, Atomic Energy Act and Rules 1962 also. Further more, I have a good collection of various circulars and executive instructions issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India and the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. Therefore, with the above mentioned background knowledge that I have possessed in this field, when I went through the contents of the article I was utterly disappointed and distraught over many parts of the contents of the said article which are full of factual errors and misinformation. Many of the interpretations of the author expressed in his article only the expose his ignorance or his shallow depth of knowledge in respect of chemical composition of ‘Monazite’, statutory provisions of Mines and Minerals Act and Rules and the circulars of the concerned Departments of Government of India issued from time to time governing the grant of mining leases and the regulatory measures in respect of “beach sand minerals”.

4. With reference to the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act 1957, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and the circulars of Ministry of Mines, Atomic Energy Department of Government of India issued at different appropriate point of time keeping in view the changing need and demand of the situation, the article , per-se lacks material facts. In this context it may not be out of place to mention that I have been watching with curiosity in the past several months that some incorrect and distorted information are doing around in the social media, some news papers, weeklies, etc., about “beach sands” regarding their occurrence, mining and the like. At all those times I did not venture to intervene to reply to those distorted facts for obvious reasons that professional rivalry in this field plays a dominant role in decimating totally this vital ‘mining sector’ itself. Now I have a valid reason to step to offer my comment since this article has addressed as “NaMo, stop the Monazite loot from Tamil Nadu and AP Scrap DAE 18, June, 2006 illegal notification allowing OGL for Atomic Minerals”. Before the authorities in the “power that be” upfront get carried away by the contents of the article which I hope they will not do so in haste I consider it my sacred duty to put the whole gamut of this matter in proper perspective and guide the course of action in proper direction to the best of my conscience and ability.

5. I can say, for certain, that some misguided elements are out in public to disseminate and propagate misguided and false information about this vital mining sector unmindful of what kind of damage that it is likely to cause if the mineral is not put into proper and timely use. Further, it is bound to cause collateral damage and double wham my both to the economy of the country as well as mining sector itself which provides employment opportunities in good numbers to several thousands of skilled, semi skilled and other category of workers both in the mines and the mineral processing units. Therefore, it is the duty of all fair minded persons to stem the spread of this ‘virus and menace’ which will spell disaster.

6. To substantiate my above comment that the article contains misinformation and distorted facts it is my duty to point out that the title itself is erroneous for the reason that the State Government, irrespective of who is at the helm of affairs, has no unilateral statutory powers independent of the parent Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which are all enacted only by the Parliament and have come into force with the assent of His Excellency, the President of India in respect of all types of “Major minerals” listed in the said Act. However, the State Governments are empowered under section 15 of the said Act to frame and enact their own independent rules only in respect of ‘minor minerals’ such as river sand, gravel blue metal, granites, etc. etc. Adverting to nuclear mine field in particular as reported in the said article, it is informed that State Government of Tamil Nadu under any Chief Minister cannot break rules and allow private mining of Atomic Minerals on their own without following the Act and Rules and the guidelines issued by the Dept. of Atomic Energy and AERB. This is applicable to all State Governments functioning under the Union of India except Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, whatever mining leases that are being granted they are granted only with the prior approval and concurrence of the concerned Departments and the Ministry of Government of India.

7. Regarding mining of ‘Monazite’ in particular I expatiate as follows upon the correct position with regard to Government of India policy on mining of beach minerals containing ‘prescribed substances and monazite’, the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India has announced its Policy Resolution on exploitation of Beach sand minerals vide its circular No.8/1(i)/97-PSU dated 06.10.1998 and published the same in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary dated 16.10.1998, Part I , Section 1 contents of which are extracted below:
“India has large reserves of beach sand minerals in the coastal stretches around the country. Ilmenite is the largest constituent of the Indian deposits, others being Rutile, Leucoxene, zircon, sillimanite, garnet and monazite. The minerals other than garnet and sillimanite, have been classified as ‘prescribed substances’ under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962”.
“Under the Industrial policy statement of 1991, the mining and production of minerals classified as ‘prescribed substances’ is reserved for the public sector”.
“Considering the growing demand for these minerals and/or their value added products in the domestic as well as international markets and the potential available in the country, setting up of new plants for exploitation of these deposits in fresh locations would be in the interest of the country. Production of various value-added products of these minerals, is, however, highly capital intensive and it may not be possible for only the PSUS (both Central and Stated owned) operating in this filed to set up the new plants on their own. It is, therefore, necessary to allow the private sector to set up such plants within the frame work of some broad guidelines”.
“In view of the background explained above, Government of India has recently approved a policy to encourage further exploitation of these mineral deposits through a judicious mix of public and private participations (including foreign investments)”.
“The other objectives of the policy are maximization of value addition to the raw minerals within the country, up-gradation of the existing process technologies to international standards, attracting funds and new technology necessary for this purpose through participation of the private sector (domestic and foreign) appropriate disposal of the new production facilities with an eye on regional balance and regulating the rate of exploitation reserves last for about hundred years without, of course, adversely affecting the investors’ techno-economic considerations.”

8. In consonance with the above declared revised policy of the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, it is informed that exploitation of “prescribed substances” including that of ‘Monazite’ has been thrown open to private participation and production and disposal of Monazite, in particular, has been permitted under private sector also since 1998 in accordance with the instructions/directives of AERB.

9. Therefore, it is needless to explain that there is no prohibition or ban on production and disposal of Monazite also by private entities. The only requirement is obtaining proper license from the competent authority. This policy decision has been taken by the concerned Department of Atomic Energy consciously keeping all aspects of “Monazite’ in mind.

10. In respect of Monazite, as per the advice of DAE, Govt., of India implemented Rule 66A a special provisions relating to atomic minerals envisioned in the Rule 66A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Hence the Beach Mineral mining lessee has to follow Rule 66A only in respect of Atomic Minerals including Monazite. Since monazite also associated with beach minerals, license from AERB is required only for production and disposal of monazite since the mineral monazite already occurs in association with other minerals in the beach sand and the agglomerated beach sand has been already mined with the valid licence for other substances contained in the beach sand.

11. Further, the requirement is that the BSM facilities have to get license from Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).

12. It is mandatory that all the existing beach sand minerals facilities carrying out mineral processing of beach sand minerals (physical separation and/or chemical processing) are required to obtain licence under rule 3 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules of 2004 from the AERB.

13. Further more, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India has, as early as 2000 itself, issued a letter D.O.No.7/3(ii)/2000-PSU/537, dated 08.05.2000 of the Officer on special Duty, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai addressed to the Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-600 032 wherein it has been mentioned, inter alia, that
“prior to issue of the Resolution of 06.10.1998 a policy of exploitation of beach sand minerals, only public sector undertakings of the Government of India/State Governments were authorized to produce and sell minerals like ilmenite, Rutile, zircon, etc., which have been declared as prescribed substances under the Atomic Energy Act. It was, in this context, that ‘No Objection Certificates’ were issued from this Department to garnet producers. “After issue of the Notification dated 06.10.1998, it is permissible for Indian owned companies also to produce and sell minerals like ilmenite, zircon, etc., with the introduction of the new policy in October, 1998, some companies who have earlier obtained ‘No Objection Certificates’ for production and sale of garnet applied to this Department seeking licence for production and sale of ilmenite also accordingly, licences were issued to the companies. Therefore, now they need not have to handover the ‘tailings’ to IREL. This Department has no objection for those companies utilizing the accumulated tailings for production of Ilmenite, etc., and sell thereof, subject to satisfying the quantities indicated in the licences by them”.

14. In the same year the Ministry of Mines, Government of India has circulated another letter to the Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-600 032 vide No.7(30)/2000-11/IV, dated 16.08.2000 with regard to production of ‘atomic minerals” wherein it has been clarified among other things as follows:

…………. In the view of Department of Atomic Energy, there is no need for separate mining lease for beach minerals occurring naturally with garnet. It may be noted that Rule 66-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which deals with mining of Atomic minerals by holder of mining lease for major minerals Rule 66A read with Rule 27(1)(b) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 clearly prescribes that in the case of atomic minerals, the inclusion of atomic minerals in the mining lease is not required…………” This clarification of the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India answers and thwarts all the evil designs of the author and the associates.

15. Further, as regards special provisions relating to Atomic Minerals such as Monazite as enshrined in sub rules (i)&(ii) of Rule 66-A(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 there is no bar on the part of a holder of mining lessee for major minerals to win and dispose of atomic minerals found associated with the other minerals for which mining lease has already been obtained subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

16. Shri.Srinivasan Kalyanaraman is obviously not aware of the procedure enunciated in the Rule 22(1) of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 wherein seekers of a mining lease for all types of major minerals in any land shall make an application only to the State Government through the District Collector concerned as per sub rule (4) of the said rule 22 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960, the State Government alone shall take a statutory decision to grant or refuse to grant a mining lease. This is the unambiguously clear statutory power conferred upon the State Governments by the Central Government through the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. However, in respect of certain category of minerals listed in the First Schedule, prior approval of the Central Government is required. Even then, the mining lease granting power is vested only with the State Governments. It is advisable that Shri. Srinivasan Kalyanaraman is requested to visit the relevant provisions of the Acts and rules governing granting of mining leases and other regulatory measures keep himself abreast of the statutory provisions in force.

17. From the above illustration of facts, it may be discerned that all mis-information and distorted facts presented in the pretext of an article are thus put at rest and nought.

18. Shri. Srinivasan Kalyanaraman is requested to get to know that the nomenclature of ‘prescribed substances’ has been deleted by the Department of Atomic Energy vide Notification dated 20-01-2006 and the nomenclature of the prescribed substances ceases to exist since then and consequently there are no prescribed substances as such now.

19. Regarding fixation of royalty for “Monazite”, it is informed that only Ministry of Mines, Government of India can fix royalty once in three years as per sub section(3) of section 9 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 . The State Governments have no statutory powers to fix royalty arbitrarily for any major minerals on their own. In fact, only the Ministry of Mines, Government of India has fixed Rs.125 per Tonne as royalty for ‘Monazite’ and all the State Governments have to follow that rate of royalty only scrupulously. Thiru.S.Kalyanaraman is therefore invited to go through Sl.No.30 of the Schedule II of MMDR Act, 1957 .

20. Shri. Srinivasan Kalyanaraman has not furnished correct information regarding composition of Monazite. He has equated ‘Monazite’ with an ore of “Uranium”. Shri.Srinivasan kaylanaraman is requested to verify from the text book on ‘Mineralogy’ by “Dana” which is acclaimed as the best reference text book on ‘Mineralogy’ prescribed in the colleges offering geology course.

21. In the said book it has been mentioned that ‘Monazite’ is the chief source of ‘Thorium Oxide’ which is used in the manufacture of “incandescent gas light mantles” whereas “Uranium” belongs to an entirely different ‘Uranite Group’ which is a phosphate of cerium metals with essentially contain Ce, La, Di, Po4 and thus each one belongs to different group of ores. It is considered pertinent to inform that the Govt. of Tamil Nadu vie its G.O.Ms.No.288 dated 18-01-1961 Dept. of Industries, Labour and Co-operation has sanctioned the grant to M/s.Palcorporation (Pvt) Ltd , No.71, Amman Sannadhi street, Madurai to mine ‘Uranium’ among other minerals , for a period of 20 years over an extent of 70.78 acres in S.Nos.116, 121, 122, 123/1 and 2, 124, 125, 126/1, 127/2, 128/1, 129/1 and 132 in Panamoopanpatti village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai district . The said company had been subsequently permitted to sell ‘Uranium’ to foreign countries by the Dept. of atomic Energy vide their letter No.7(1)(29)/99-PSU/512 dated 22.5.2001 on a specific request and application made by the said company to the Dept. It may be noted here that ‘Uranium’ is more potential nuclear and radio-active mineral than ‘Thorium’ content ‘Monazite’ and that high potency radio-active nuclear mineral itself had been permitted to be sold to a private company by the Department of Atomic Energy.

22. It is pertinent to point out here that even M/s.Indian Rare Earths Limited exports monazite only to private parties in other countries.

23. This factual information, I am sure will dispel the scare and misapprehensions created regarding mining and disposal of ‘Monazite’ by private lessees in Tamil Nadu.

24. In the said article Shri Srinivasan Kalyanaraman has reported that the Department of Geology and Mining has granted 16 licences in 2012-2013 allowing private companies to mine atomic mineral ‘Monazite’. Since he has not furnished the list of those 16 licences, I am unable to offer specific comments on each of them. However, I can offer a generalised comment by which I may state that if all 16 licences are already in possession of individual mining leases for other types of major minerals, there is no statutory bar to cause inclusion of ‘Monazite’ also in their existing mining leases as per rule 66-A of the Mineral Concessions Rule, 1960 and also in accordance with the several clarifications and executive instructions given by the Department of Atomic Energy as well as the Ministry of Mines, Government of India in this regard. No separate approval is necessary but only a licence from the AERB for disposal of monazite is required as per AERB guidelines and instructions. In such already existing mining leases, inclusion of any additional mineral including ‘Monazite’ can be absolutely statutorily allowed by the competent authority of the State Governments and there is no illegality in this regard. But actual disposal of Monazite shall be done only in accordance with the direction of AERB. Therefore, inclusion of monazite in the existing mining lease may be ordered by the competent authority of the State Govt. with the imposition of a special condition to obtain a license from AERB before disposal of monazite.

25. As for other contents of this article such as submission of an affidavit by the Department of Atomic Energy in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in 2013 related to a case by some private company, I would like to state that I have no comments to offer as I am not concerned with those matters and the matter is sub-judice.
General observation and conclusion

a) Once again I would like to state the whole article put up on the blog by Shri.Srinivasa Kalyanaraman contains factual errors and misleading information.
b) It is quite unfortunate that, of late . some people in Tamilnadu have been painting a bad picture about beach sand mining in toto and the functions of the State Govt. in this regard in Tamil Nadu alone . I fail to understand as to why these people have been keeping silence when similar beach sand mining has been permitted in the coastal areas of the states of Orissa, Kerala and Maharashtra, etc., by the respective state governments to private parties.
c) I am sanguine that this reply of mine may at least now throw some light and bring out revelations on what is envisioned in the statutory provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and the existing the Policy of beach sand mining with particular reference to the prescribed substances and monazite thereby setting right the perceptions set in motion in the public by some people.
d) The beach sand minerals ‘as its name itself implies are unique in their occurrence confining to a few coastal zones of the States of Kerala, Orissa, AP, Maharashtra and Gujarat some extent. If these replenishable deposits are not allowed to be exploited at proper time, this will remain unutilised or misused by the locals for construction and other inferior purpose or it will be drawn back to the ocean bed itself by wave action without being available for use in the mineral based industries as well export to foreign countries. Therefore, it is irrational to oppose for the sake of opposing what is better for the progress, prosperity and industrial development of this country at large.

 

Link :  

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003054516493&fref=ts 

 

Translation – Objection to Hindu on 20.8.14

Coastal Environment and Ecology Conservation Committee Letter dated 20.08.2014

Sir,
On 19.08.2014, there was an article written by you under the heading “travel in a mysterious area” and I submit my objection to that article as follows.  The 1st photograph in the above said page, is available in Vaippar village Beach.   Algae being separated, the black babool, and there is no residence and the sand is not being quarried will be revealed from that photograph itself. The 2nd photograph is the Karaichuthu Pudur village beach, there also there is no residence, agriculture, and the sand is being spread by the wind will be clearly revealed.

There is no connection whatsoever between the photograph and your article.  But with the ulterior motive, for the money received from Thiru. Dayadevadass and Nila Sea Food company, you have starting from the Indian Rare Earth Limited at Kanyakumari, the target is being made on the V.V.Minerals. The area mentioned by you Neroodi, Midalam all are available in Indian Rare Earth Limited company, Govt., company mining lease area.  IRE Ltd itself mining sand in the sea which is permitted by Central Government.

Without CRZ Clearance and without environmental clearance, without valid mining lease renewal, they are quarrying from 1992 to till now.  You had not written about that and you are writing about the mining operation by V.V.Mineral made in own patta lands with proper permissions and approvals and it alone will reveal that you are writing for the money received by you. You have mentioned that the fishermen are being affected and that they are objecting the same. In real fact, the fishermen themselves are engaged in the mining activity.

Some person like you who are working for the money received from Dayadevadas group, had given their interview, stating that they are objecting the same.  I had enclosed a letter copy obtained from the Indian Rare Earth Limited.  If you see this, you can find out that IRE Ltd employees only 15 persons are engaged, but more than 2000 people are from Kottelpadu, Neroodi, Chinnavilai, Periyavilai which are mentioned by your news item.   You are also saying another big slander as there is an irregularity to the tune of Rs.1 lakh Crore.  If we ask that do you have any proof, you will quote previous news or report of Ashishkumar.

If a corrupted officer gives the wrongful report like this for the purpose of money without any proof, is it fair to release of the same in your magazine without any perusal whatsoever? In your release, if it was mentioned in the note that this news is being published for the money received by us, it is correct or if it is written that it is being published for the money received by your reporter, it is also justified. The objections being made by some persons is mentioned to be objection by the village and the news published as such is with ulterior motive.  If really want to publish the news which will affect the general public, you would have written about the Indian rate Earth Limited which is functioning without the environmental clearance, CRZ Clearance without valid mining lease renewal. All over India, highly radioactivity mineral sand is available in Manavalakurichi (Please refer to the answer to the un-stared question No.3259 in the Rajyasaba of Parliament).  Indian Rare Earth Limited is functioning there. 

The radioactivity sand which is not quarried through IRE Ltd’s own staff. But they are using the fishermen for quarrying the radioactive mineral.  Could you say as to how many fishermen died in this? If the diseases mentioned by you are being caused due to this, there is no need for the cancer hospital at Chennai.  It should be in Kanyakumari.  There should not be cancer in any of the other countries in the world.  Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Tuticorin alone mining activities are carried out. When that being so, the disease should not be there in the other districts. Please do not misuse the freedom of Press for the purpose of money.

Please look at the below mentioned websites.

www.beachminerals.org

www.coastalenvironment.org

http://mraja2013.blogspot.in

If you see the above said websites, you can find out that who is the route cause for submitting false report by Ashish Kumar and who is behind the pre-planned false news spread. All are available in the form of video photo and news.   Please see this, and stop the spreading of the false rumors for the sake of money in future.  Please publish my objection as it is in your newspaper.  

Yours truly  

Sd/- R. Immanuvel

Copy of Complaint petition send to various authorities about the unlawful activities by Indian Rare Earths Limited

 In the below mentioned complaint petition certain violations committed by IRE Ltd was bring to the notice of the authorities.

 

Violations Pointed out in the below mentioned letters are

 

1) No Coastal Regulation Zone clearance were obtained.

2) No Environmental Clearance obtained.

3) Leases were granted without approved mining plan

4) Private parties land are encroached by IRE Ltd without land owner consent.

5) Atomic Minerals are illegally mined without inclusion of the same in the mining lease. 

6) Royalty is paid in a less amount thus 300 Crore Revenue loss to government

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date : 24.07.2014

To

 

1. The Secretary to Govt.,

Department of Atomic Energy,

CSM Marg,     Mumbai

2. The Secretary to Govt.,

Ministry of Mines,

Shastri Bhavan,   New Delhi

3. The Principal Secretary to Govt.,

Industries Department,

Thiruvananthapuram,     Kerala

 

4. The Secretary to Govt.,

Ministry of Environment and Forest,

Paryawaran Bhawan,

New Delhi

 

5. The Controller General,

Office of the Controller General,

Indian Bureau of Mines,

6th Floor, Block ‘B & C’,

Indira Bhavan, Civil Lines,

Nagpur-440001

 

6.   The Director,

Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research,

Begumpet,     Hyderabad

7.  The Director,

Ministry of Environment and Forest,

Regional Office (Southern Zone)

Kendriya Sadan, IV Floor, E&F Wing

17th Main Road, IInd Block,

Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 034

 

8. The Director of Environment,

Directorate of Environment and Climate Change,

Pallimukku, Pettah P.O.,

Thiruvanthapuram – 695 024

 

9.  The Member Secretary,

Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Pattom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004

 

10. The Director of Mining and Geology

Directorate of Mining and Geology,

Kesavadasapuram,   Pattom Post,

Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Sub : Complaint against Indian Rare Earths Limited, Chavara for violation of MMDR Act and Rules and other

relevant act  and Rules and for creating environmental de-gradation – reg.

 

Ref : 1. G.O.(Ms).No. 22/2005/ID Industries (A) Department dated  22.02.2005 issued by Govt., of Kerala

2. MoEF, Regional Office (South Zone) Bangalore letter No.  SPA/2(1)(ENV)(KER)/RO(SZ)/RTI/5439

dated  13.06.2014

3. SEIAA, Kerala letter No. DoECC/A1//RTI/2695/2014    dated 05.07.2014

Tvl. Indian Rare Earths Limited (IRE Ltd), Chavara have obtained the mining lease as per the reference 1st cited above for mining major mineral sands over an extent of 102.77.0 Hect in Thekkumbhagom, Chavara, Panmana and Karunagappally villages, of Karunagally Taluk of Kollam district for a period of 20 years.

 

According to the MMDR Act the statutory requisite documents mentioned in rule 22 is mandatory. Without complying the above conditions, mining lease cannot be granted.

 

Moreover according to MMDR Act section 5(2)(b), the State Govt., shall not grant mining lease unless it is satisfied that there is a mining plan duly approved by Govt., of India.

 

In this case, without the Statement in writing for surface right as required under rule 22(3)(h), the ML application was processed and lease is granted. This is against law.

 

Moreover without the approved mining plan, the mining lease is granted. This is violation of section 5(2)(b) of MMDR Act.

 

Moreover the mining lease is granted in the name of “Mineral Sands”. But they remit royalty at the rate fixed for Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon and Silimanite.

 

According to Rule 66A of MC Rules, without inclusion of Atomic Minerals, the lessee cannot carryout mining operation. In this case, the above said G.O. it is specifically mentioned that the mining lease is granted for “Mineral Sands”.   When that is the position, without inclusion of Ilmenite, Rutile, Silimanite, Zircon, Monazite,  the mining plan cannot be approved. Moreover they cannot mine the above said minerals in the mining lease area as, the above said minerals are not included in the above said mining lease.

 

Moreover since mineral sand is not found place in Schedule 1 or Schedule II of MMDR Act, according to the serial no. 51 of entry schedule II, 10% of the sale price is the royalty. Whereas, IRE Ltd pay the royalty for Garnet, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Silimanite, Monazite. Thus the State Govt., has a huge revenue loss amounting approximately 300 Crore rupees.

 

According to rule 64A of Mineral Concession Rules 24% simple interest has to be calculated and collected from the company from the year 1998. Hence approximately another 150 Crore Rupees has to be recovered from IRE Ltd, Chavara by the State Government.

 

Moreover for the non-payment of above amounts, and for carryout mining operation without inclusion of Ilmenite, Rutile etc., in their mineral sand mining lease, IRE Ltd will become defaulter as well as illegal miner. Hence their mining application cannot be entertained by any of the authorities until the above default are cured by remitting the dues with interest and by compounding the offence under section 23A of MMDR Act.

 

According to section 19 of MMDR Act, the mining leases granted by violating the Act and Rules become null and void. In this case, the mining lease is granted by violating the Act and Rules. Hence the above said mining lease is become null and void and IRE Ltd cannot operate the mining lease.

 

In respect of approved mining plan, there is no provision either in the MMDR Act or MC Rules or MCD Rules to approve the mining plan after grant of mining lease. In this case, the Atomic Minerals Directorate officials and IBM officials have approve the mining plan without any authority and by violating the Act and Rules. Hence the suitable action has to be taken against the concerned persons for the above said violations.

 

According to CRZ Notification, without getting CRZ Clearance, the mining operation cannot be started. Moreover since the area is more than 50 hectare, environmental clearance under EIA Notification also mandatory.  In the lease granting G.O., the State Govt., has impose specific condition No.5 to the Director of Mining and Geology to ensure the compliance of other applicable act and rules. Whereas, in this case, the Director of Mining and Geology failed to comply the above said Director. Hence action also should be initiated for non-compliance of the Govt., direction.

 

Moreover they did not obtain consent for their mining lease area under the provisions of Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act and Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act.

 

In this case, IRE Ltd has violated the above two mandatory requirements. The authorities also failed to take action for the above said violation.  Hence the concerned persons has to be prosecuted under the provisions of Environmental Protection Act.  I also invite your kind attention that, already the National Green Tribunal has passed an order last that no mining operation should be carried out within CRZ Area, without proper CRZ Clearance. The above said order is still in force. The mining lease granted area is within CRZ. Hence for violating the above said National Green Tribunal order, the authorities who permit the Green Tribunal order also has to be prosecuted.

 

Because of the mining operation of IRE Ltd, without proper CRZ Clearance and EIA Clearance, all the surrounding villages and lands are completely destroyed and the loss due to the environmental degradation is more than 250 Crore rupees. It is the duty of the State and Central Environmental Department officials to take suitable action against IRE Ltd for the above said violation. Whereas in this case, the authorities, until now did not take any action. So they have to initiate action against IRE Ltd and to stop the mining operations at once in accordance with the environmental protection act.

 

Moreover their mining operation also has to be stopped immediately for violation of CRZ notification as well as EIA Notification.

Since Mr.P.S.Parikar, Director of Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research, Hyderabad is one of the Director in Indian Rare Earths Limited company, the said statutory officer, instead of initiating legal action against IRE Ltd, they protect IRE Ltd’s illegal activities and approved the mining plan illegally.

 

          Already a public interest litigation is pending in the High Court of Judicature at Kerala against IRE Ltd.

 

          In case, suitable action is not initiated  against IRE Ltd and against the concerned erred officials, I will file an implead petition in the above said PIL or file a separate PIL and high light all the above said violations and aske the honourable court to initiate action in accordance with law.

 

Hence your suitable action is highly requested and your earliest reply also solicited.

Thanking you

Yours truly

Sd/-

R. Immanuvel

Copy to :

1.  The Principal Accountant General,

Office of the Principal Accountant General,

Audit Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram

(with a request to take action to recover the above said money due to the State Govt., in accordance with MMDR Act.)

 

2. The Chief Vigilance Officer

Indian Rare Earths Limited

ECIL Building,

Plot No:1207, Veer Savarkar Marg,

Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 028

(with a request to initiate suitable action for violation of the act and rules)

 

Note:

All the above letters were send by Speed Post No.ET7159185861IN to ET7159185891 to  from Tirunelveli RMS on 26.07.2014. No action taken until now. But the units which have valid permissions are victimized.

 

 

 

தமிழக-ஆந்திரா மீனவர்கள் மோதல்: கண்ணீர் புகை குண்டுவீச்சு!

திருவள்ளூர்: திருவள்ளூர் மாவட்டம், பழவேற்காடு ஏரியில் மீன் பிடிப்பதில் தமிழக- ஆந்திர மீனவர்கள் இடையே ஏற்பட்ட மோதலை கலைக்க காவல்துறையினர் கண்ணீர் புகை குண்டை வீசியதால் அங்கு பதற்றம் நிலவியது. பொன்னேரி அருகே உள்ள பழவேற்காடு ஏரியில் மீன்பிடிப்பது தொடர்பாக தமிழக- ஆந்திர மீனவர்கள் இடையே பல ஆண்டுகாலமாக பிரச்னை இருந்து வருகிறது. இதனிடையே, ஆந்திர மீனவர்கள் அதிகமாக மீன்பிடிப்பதால் தங்கள் வாழ்வாதாரம் பாதிக்கப்படுவதாக தமிழக மீனவர்கள் புகார் தெரிவித்தனர். இந்நிலையில், சின்னமாங்காடு அருகே ஆந்திர மீனவர்கள் தமிழக மீனவர்கள் மீது பெட்ரோல் குண்டுகளை வீசி தாக்குதல் நடத்தினர். இதில், தமிழக மீனவர் ஒருவரின் படகு தீ வைத்து எரிக்கப்பட்டது. மேலும், சின்னமாங்காட்டில் உள்ள 10 மேற்பட்ட வீடுகளையும், காவல்துறை வாகனத்தையும் ஆந்திர மீனவர்கள் தீ வைத்து எரித்தனர். இதனால், இரண்டு தரப்பினருக்கும் இடையே மோதல் ஏற்பட்டது. தகவல் அறிந்து காவல்துறையினர் சம்பவ இடத்துக்கு விரைந்து வந்தனர். கூட்டத்தை கலைக்க காவல்துறையினர் கண்ணீர் புகை குண்டுகளை வீசினர். தொடர்ந்து பதற்றம் நிலவி வருவதால் சின்னமாங்காடு, பெரியமாங்காடு, புதுக்குப்பம் ஆகிய கிராமங்களை சேர்ந்த மீனவர்கள் ஊரை காலி செய்தனர். தொடர்ந்து அங்கு காவல்துறையினர் பாதுகாப்பு பணியில் ஈடுபட்டுள்ளனர். மீனவர்களுக்கு இடையேயான மோதலில் ஏடிஎஸ்பி ஸ்டாலின், இன்ஸ்பெக்டர் ராஜா ராபர்ட் காயம் அடைந்தனர். இருவரும் மருத்துவமனையில் அனுமதிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளனர்.

Read more at: http://tamil.oneindia.in/news/tamilnadu/tn-ap-fishermen-at-war-197960.html

இந்திய பெருங்கடலில் மேலும் 10000 சதுர கிலோ மீட்டர் பரப்பளவில் கனிமங்களை ஆய்வு செய்ய இந்திய அரசுக்கு சர்வதேச கடல் படுகை ஆணை குழு (International Sea Bed authority (ISA) அனுமதி

இந்திய அரசு ஏற்கனவே இந்திய பெருங்கடல் படுகையில் 75,000 சதர கிலோமீட்டர் பரப்பளவில் ஆழ்கடலில் கனிமங்கள் குவாரி செய்ய அனுமதி பெற்றுள்ளது. மேலும் 10000 சதுர கிலோ மீட்டர் பரப்பளவில் இந்த அனுமதி கேட்;டு இந்திய அரசு சர்வதேச கடல் படுகை ஆணை குழுவிற்கு விண்ணப்பம் சமர்பித்தது. அதனை சர்வதேச ஆணை குழு அனுமதித்துள்ளது. ஏற்கனவே இதே போல் ஆழ்கடல் சுரங்க பணியில் சைனா மற்றும் மேற்கத்திய நாடுகள் ஏராளமான உரிமங்கள் பெற்று இறங்கி உள்ளன என்றும், எனவே இந்தியாவின் பாதுகாப்பையும் கருத்தில் கொண்டு இந்த உரிமம் பெற வேண்டியது அவசியம் என்றும் கூறப்படுகிறது.

Source : http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/Nod-for-Extra-Mining-in-Indian-Ocean-Bed/2014/03/20/article2119157.ece 

———

Nod for Extra Mining in Indian Ocean Bed

By Richa Sharma – NEW DELHI

Published: 20th March 2014 10:00 AM

Last Updated: 20th March 2014 10:00 AM

In line with its efforts to expand its footprint in the strategically important Indian Ocean, India has got a go-ahead from the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for exploration of minerals in another 10,000 sq km area in the South-West Indian Ocean.

New Delhi already has exploration rights in around 75,000 sq km area in the Indian Ocean.

The Union Ministry of Earth Sciences has submitted an application with the ISA, a UN body that administers mineral resources in the international seas and regulates deep-sea mining activities, for getting exploration rights in 10,000 sq km area.

According to ministry sources, the proposal was cleared by the ISA at its meeting last month and now it will be submitted before the UN Assembly in July for a final approval.

New Delhi had made a similar representation to  the Jamaica-headquartered ISA in July. “We got the ISA approval for exploration rights in 10,000 sq km area in South-West India Ocean and now it will go to the UN Assembly for final approval,” the sources said adding that following the ISA clearance the rest was now just a formal process.

In 2002, India had got exploration licence for polymetallic nodules, which apparently contain many valuable minerals such as copper, zinc, gold, silver and nickel, in the central Indian Ocean.

The licence is set to expire in 2017 and New Delhi is in trying to assess whether it needs to get the same renewed. Having a hold in the South-West Indian Ocean is also important to India from the security point of view since China already has its presence in the key ocean waters.

Beijing  along with the other Western countries was among the first few countries to have got licences to explore the mineral-rich Indian Ocean in 2001.

Infact, China has exploration rights for minerals in the North-East Pacific and South-West Indian Ocean. The offshore exploration of minerals is of utmost importance to countries like India and China since the mineral resources on land are fast-depleting.

Nod for Extra Mining in Indian Ocean Bed