Revision petition, ordinance in pipeline to resume mining in Goa: Minister
Panaji, May 26: The Central government will soon file a revision petition in the Supreme Court seeking direction to resume mining operations in Goa, which stands banned following directions from the apex court in March this year, a Union Minister said on Saturday.
Talking to reporters at the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)'s state headquarters here, Union Minister of State for AYUSH Shripad Naik said an ordinance could also be issued by the Centre to pave the way for resumption of mining activity in the state.
"We are working hard to resume mining in Goa. Work is on fast-track. The state government is in touch with the Centre over the issue," Naik told the media.
"The (option of) ordinance is also there. It is a matter of livelihood of our people. We have convinced the Centre about our case."
On March 15 this year, the Supreme Court had banned all mining activity, including transportation of iron ore from Goa's 88 mining leases, and directed the state government to re-issue the leases.
Mining was first banned in 2012 following a series of ban orders from the state government, central government and the Supreme Court, after a Rs 35,000-crore illegal mining was revealed by a judicial commission.
The ban was later lifted in 2014, but the apex court while reprimanding the state government over hurried renewal of mining leases in favour of same mining companies linked to the scam, scrapped all the 88 operational mining leases, and directed the state government to issue the leases afresh as per the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, which mandates auctioning of major mineral resources.
The mining ban has resulted in a lot of pressure on the ruling parties, with locals residing in the mining belt -- which is spread over nearly one-third of the 40 assembly constituencies -- urging their elected representatives to resume operations at the earliest.
Earlier this week, Vijai Sardesai, Town and Country Planning Minister in the BJP-led coalition government and president of the Goa Forward Party, issued a warning to the BJP that his party would rethink supporting the BJP in the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections if the mining crisis was not resolved at the earliest.
The BJP has 14 MLAs in the 40-member Goa Legislative Assembly and currently occupies the treasury benches with the help of three MLAs each from Goa Forward Party and the Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party, as well as three Independent MLAs.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Karnataka Guv letter to govt, want to know how it got 'confidential material' from Lokayukta
Bengaluru (PTI): Another letter written by Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to the Chief Secretary, expressing "perplexity", as to how the government came to know about the "confidential material" relating to Lokayukta's request to him seeking prosecution or investigation sanction against some opposition leaders, surfaced on Friday.
In the letter to Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh, the Governor also pointed out that in the August 22 Cabinet decision there is only observation with regard to pendency in according sanction in four cases, and there was no "advice" to him, as reported in the media.
The Karnataka Cabinet has decided to give "aid and advice" to the Governor to act on requests seeking sanction for prosecution against JD(S) leader and Union Minister H D Kumaraswamy and three former BJP ministers including mining baron G Janardhan Reddy, the government had said on August 22.
"I have been made aware through media reports published on 23-08-2024 that the Cabinet had advised the Governor to accord sanction for investigation/prosecution proposal against H D Kumaraswamy, Murugesh Nirani, Janardhan Reddy, and Shashikala Jolle received from Lokayukta police without delay," the Governor said in a letter dated August 28.
"But, on thorough reading of the Cabinet decisions, it is further noted, that there is only observation with regard to pendency in according sanction in the above four cases along with dates of submission by Lokayukta Police to this Secretariat but there is no advice as such," he said.
Further noting that he is both "curious and perplexed" to note that how did the State Government and the Cabinet came to know about the request from Lokayukta Police along with dates of submission to the sanctioning authority and other details, the Governor asked, "how did Lokayukta Police being an independent body share confidential material with any person other than the sanctioning authority since I have seen in the media the confidential material floating around?"
"I am also curious to see the Cabinet note/materials regarding this subject based on which the Cabinet has observed and decided and which has been conveyed to me officially. Hence, I expect a prompt and early reply along with Cabinet note/supporting documents and the source of documents/ information in this regard," he added.
The August 22 Cabinet meeting and its decision that the Governor is referring to, was held within a week after him granting sanction for prosecution and investigation of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment case on August 16.
On August 19, Siddaramaiah moved the High Court challenging the legality of the Governor's order.
The High Court on September 12 completed its hearing on Siddaramaiah's petition challenging the legality of Governor Gehlot's approval for investigation against him in the MUDA site allotment case and reserved its orders.
In the MUDA site allotment case, it is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru, which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been "acquired" by the MUDA.
The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where MUDA developed a residential layout.
Under the controversial scheme, MUDA allotted 50 per cent of developed land to the land losers in lieu of undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts. Some Opposition leaders and activists have also claimed that Parvathi had no legal title over this 3.16 acres of land.
