This is an article about an effort which asserts people's right to fairness and clarity of administration of law and gives the account of steps that warrants to achieve the aforesaid result.

1. 1
MINING QUAGMIRE-A STEP TO BRING CLARITY IN THE SECTOR.
A request to Revisional Authority for Constitution of a scientific
body and audio-video recording of Sec-30 of MMDR Act, 1957
proceedings.
Authored By:
Shri Biswajit Das, Advocate, Supreme Court of India,
Managing Partner, Juris & Juris, B-4/115, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi- 110029.
Mining Sector for over a decade is passing through the most critical phase, which can be called a
water-shed moment for it and may be an eye-opener for almost all other sectors. Various reasons
contributed to the same. They are,
a) China-boom of 2006-09,
b) Sudden and unprecedented windfall-gain during the said phase,
c) Inertia in lackadaisical implementation and enforcement of law,
d) Clear divide between Govt. road map and civil society’s expectation,
e) A complete distrust between various stakeholders,
f) Taking over executive functions by courts,
g) Cacophony overshadowed reason,
h) Lack of clear understanding of the subject by almost all and
i) Policy, legal, Scientific and Judicial blurring.
In this environment of mutual distrust, objectivity became the biggest causality as dominant
stakeholders run amok shorn of any corrective steps. In the process, public interest and mineral
development suffered the most. Surprisingly however, a completely different picture is perceived in
a public space. No wonder it begeted an unprecedented vicious circle for all.
This led to Govt. becoming pro-active with legislations after legislations though without any clear
and unambiguous policy measure. This was done to avoid criticism even if it means further
destruction.
Throughout it has been our consistent endeavor to bring clarity on ground in whatever form and at
whatever level as we have preached and practice positivity positively. Wherever we were given the
responsibility we have discharged the same uncompromisingly and without any failure. In sync with
our such practice, we have in the mean time drawn the attention of the Central Govt and the
Revisional Authority in the following manner in relation to the following subject:
CONSTITUTION OF A SCIENTIFIC BODY FOR A REPORT ON QUANTITY AS A CONDITION TO VARIOUS
CLEARANCES
1. It is in the interests of justice and in the larger interests of rule of law and clarity to the
society, the new demand order raised by various States must pass through legal, scientific
and rational test known to all the stakeholders universally to be true. In this regard the
quantity of production of ore was never a statutory condition neither in the Mining Plan
(MP) or in the Environment Clearance (EC) or in any other statutory documents nor the
same is desirable under any layers and contours of scientific expediency and reason. The
said quantity had no direct bearing on the mining, environment and its law and science.

2. 2
2. This test regarding quantity, being a subject of science, ought to be asserted scientifically to
give the said parameters a legal force and for which at least a transparent, rational, logical
and legal debate is warranted.
3. An independent body comprising of eminent scientist in the field of mining and
environment must be constituted from the members amongst credible
institutions/bodies/individuals and an unambiguous terms of reference be given to it to
analyse these critical factors objectively, fairly, transparently and sincerely in spirit of
fairness, rule of law and objectivity. The said proposed committee/body shall invite different
stakeholders and deliberate those issues in an audio-video recorded environment with
maximum possible participation of all people other than all the stakeholders.
4. The revisional authority, being a quasi-judicial authority so declared by the 5 large
constitutional bench of the Hon Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in “Shivji Nathu
Bhai v.UOI, AIR1960 SC 606”, may either exercise this power in the larger public interest,
discourse, fairness, transparency, public faith and mineral development, or alternatively
directs the Centre Govt. to undertake such exercise urgently and diligently in a time bound
manner.
5. It is unambiguously clear from the science point of view besides the original and known
statutory structure of the MMDR Act is, 1957, EP Act, 1986, Air Act, 1981, Water Act, 1974,
etc. to note that the concept of quantity production (Excess) is alien to CTO, CTE, MP, MS,
EC, etc. and that the concept of Inter-Generational Equity (IGE) is highly misplaced criteria in
this regard, which be demonstrated, both scientifically and legally, during the hearing of
applicationsand the revision applications as well as before the proposed body of scientists.
6. It is to be noted thattill date there has been no fair, transparence, objective and just
demonstration and critical and collective analyses of mining and environment science and
law on these subjects before any forums whatsoever much less this forum. If the mineral
interest is to be really protected keeping in view the interest of the larger discourse and
public, the same warrants fair, objective, scientific and transparent approach with
involvement of people of eminence and fairness, drawn from different works of life having
bearing in the exercise.
7. Unfortunately however, cacophony precedes the objectivity, rule of law, fairness, rationality,
experience, which smokescreen must be cleared once and for all times to come.
8. The record would clearly reveal, while the Hon’ble Justice MB Shah Commission was
constituted by the Central Government to find out the illegal mining and its causes, sources
etc. i.e. “theft of mining”, the said Commission unfortunately however, for obvious reason
keeping in view the peculiarity of incidence of theft, went into a completely different
tangent and termed the apparently “irregular mining” or “mining without compliance of
some law” as “illegal mining” giving unreasonable credence to un-substantiated and
frivolous allegations. Even during its deliberation, no independent scientific body suggested
here in above were either constituted, consulted or referred to, which in itself is the reason
to undertake this proposed exercise even now.
9. It is further suggested to constitute of a Scientific Body comprising of three eminent,
independent and fair scientists drawn from independent institutions like IITs, International
Mining and Environmental Bodies and Institutions etc. giving clear terms of reference, or
alternatively, direct the Central Govt. to constitute such Body within a period of 2 weeks
with mandated terms of reference.

3. 3
10. The central Government should give responsibility to the said Body to undertake the
scientific study on the referred issue and give its Report after deliberating with all the stake
holders including all the applicants in a video-audio recorded environment and submit the
said Report for the consideration on the pending Revision Applications.
AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING OF THE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE MMDR
ACT, 1957 AT LEAST IN MATTERS WHERE WE ARE REPRESENTING PARTIES
1. Request to the Revisional Authorityis meant to advance the Cause of Justice deserved by all
the citizens of this country alike, including giving protection to the people entrusted with the
duty and responsibility to discharge the function under Section 30 of the Mines and Mineral
Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1957”).
2. The said request is being made by us at this stage in order to ensure free, fair and un-
intimidated process of adjudication for parties aggrieved, since it is seen and heard on at
least two earlier occasions during the course of hearing on 24.02.2016 and 09.03.2016 that
the predecessor of this Hon’ble authority indeed quoted some spurious complaints made
against him in relation to the then pending proceeding where he is accused of acting in a
particular manner, which prompted him to decide all the pending matters against the
revisionist as he was not ready and willing to be entangled in those spurious pre-emptive
allegations. He also then invited suggestions for bringing more transparency in the
adjudication process. It is seen from the record as always witnessed by the Counsels of all
the revisionists that due to these spurious accusations made to pre-empt the decisions in
the revision petitions, often the revisional authority end up deciding against the mining
community to pacify those activism and avoid unwanted accusations even at the cost of
fairness, rationality, reason, mineral interest, public discourse and rule of law.
3. That the applicants did feel the pain and intimidation being meted out through these
random and spurious complaints out there to short-charge the fate of the pending Revision
applications. It is seen from the record witnessed by the Counsel of all the revisionists that
the predecessor of this Hon’ble authority did mention the words, “hue and cry” and
“Rs.70,000 Crores demand by the State pending adjudication before Revisional Authority”,
during his earlier hearings, which ended up the said officer giving a completely different and
illegal affidavit dated 20.01.2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said Common
Cause Vs. UOI, which ended up as the Judgment dated 02.08.2017 that the State Govt. is
keen to adopt it as it is without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Revisionists.
4. The predecessor of the Revisional Authority namely Shri. Sudhakar Shukla also spoke his
mind during one similar hearing as witnessed by the counsel of the revisionists that it would
remand matters pertaining to lapsing then pending before it with a direction to the State
Government to give parties an opportunity to hearing therein despite resistance that the
Revisional Authority is competent to decide the matters on merit instead of resorting to
technical grounds like principles of natural justice to prevent further miscarriage of justice. It
was indeed explained by the present Counsel then that deciding cases on merit by the
Revisional Authority is in the interest of mineral development.
5. Such a possible outcome as expressed by the predecessor of this Hon’ble Revisional
Authority at the very outset has a clear trace of effect of his cited complaint, which belittle

4. 4
the very process of adjudication and brings perversity to it even before the commencement
of submission and adjudication.
6. The applicants has reasons to believe that the fate of their Revisional Applications is doomed
because of the threats in the forms of allegations and possibly the lack of adequate
protection of the presiding members of the Hon’ble Revisional Authority from such possible
future mud-slinging and persecution. They have further reasons to believe that “more than
the law, the ongoing hue and cry effect will be the deciding factor in all the pending cases,
should these proceedings are not appropriately insulated, preferably through transparency,
from such external influences”.
7. The applicants invoke their redressal right conferred upon them, both by Section 30 of the
Act, 1957 and the Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of India, to seek kind
indulgence of this Hon’ble Authority to bring an element of transparency not only in form
but also in substance, content and action, for it has always been reiterated that “justice is
not only to be done but also to be seen in doing”.
8. Thus, the Hon’ble Authority should pass an order directing for audio and video recording of
the proceeding in the presence of any party willing to participate and assist this august
authority in the interest of justice and mineral development interest.
…………………………….