State Chief Secretary Rebecca V. Suchiang could not file her report to the Meghalaya High Court on the immediate steps taken to stop “incidental” mining of minor minerals in the State.
An application has been filed by the State government recently seeking the High Court’s permission to file the report through some other personnel and not the Chief Secretary, since the Chief Secretary was on leave.
During the hearing of the matter in the division bench of the High Court today, Advocate General Amit Kumar informed the bench that the Chief Secretary has joined work today.
On this, the High Court gave one week for the Chief Secretary to file the report as directed, with a copy made to the lawyer for the petitioner at least a day in advance. The next hearing of the matter will be on May 6.
During the hearing on the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one Lawyerson War on April 5, the High Court had asked the Chief Secretary to file a report on the steps taken to stop “incidental loot” of minor minerals in the State.
The court stated that tens of crores of rupees in revenue have been lost to the State at least from 2018 to 2021 due to illegal extraction of minor minerals through an amendment brought about in the Meghalaya Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 on January 29, 2018.
Stating that the amendment appears to be a disingenuous design to facilitate illegal quarrying and mining, the High Court referred to a new definition that was added to the Rules of 2016 by introducing, inter alia, clause (u) to define “incidental”.
As per the definition in the amended Rules, “incidental” in the context of extraction of minor minerals means such an unintended extraction which arises out of non-mining activities such as construction of roads or other major infrastructural projects.
“It obviously led to free loot and a mad scramble among the most favoured to make merry at the cost of the State. The guardians of the State assets let veritable poachers in for obvious extraneous considerations. The State’s action is not un-akin to a house owner inviting thieves to loot all his properties and then seeking a commission on the sale thereof,” the High Court said.
The petitioner has revealed that several persons “incidentally” extracted amounts as much as 99,061.2 MT, 42,907 MT, 34,621 cubic metre of limestone in the course of construction of a farmhouse or a residential pathway or paving the way to a paddy field.
“There are several such instances of large scale ‘incidental’ extraction of limestone without it being in the course of any road construction or infrastructural project. There is no doubt that there is executive complicity in the matter. Indeed, this reflects an utterly inept bureaucracy and no check or balance or any accountability at any level,” the High Court said.
