Cuttack: Rapping the Odisha govt for allowing large-scale underutilisation of iron ore mines, the Orissa high court on Thursday directed the state to invoke Rule 12(1)(ee) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, to ensure optimum extraction of minerals and prevent further loss to the public exchequer.Disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Bhubaneswar-based NGO Citizen’s Action Forum, a division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman observed that despite approved mining plans and environmental clearances, several iron ore blocks have failed to achieve even minimum production levels for years.Directing immediate corrective measures, the bench ordered the state govt to invoke Rule 12(1) (ee) of the Concession Rules to ensure optimum utilisation of iron ore mines through the National Mineral Development Corporation, a central public sector undertaking. Such a move, the bench observed, would not only improve production but also “eradicate any burden on the government exchequer”. Additional govt advocate Debashis Tripathy represented the state.The high court took note of a state affidavit admitting that “almost majority of the mining lease holders have not secured the optimum extraction of the iron ore”, and that in some cases, penalties were imposed but kept in abeyance owing to interim court orders.Calling the situation a case of “patent underutilisation of the mines by the mining lease holders”, the bench expressed concern that the state had not invoked Rule 12(1)(ee) of the Concession Rules, 2016, which allows intervention in cases of persistent default. The PIL, the court noted, cited continuous underperformance across multiple years, leading not only to loss of statutory revenue but also impacting livelihood in mining-dependent regions.Recording the petitioner’s submission on financial impact, the bench said the average minimum utilisation shortfall had caused losses of “roughly amount to rupees four thousand crores” to the state.Emphasising the binding nature of statutory provisions, the court said, “The provisions contained in the statutory framework cannot be put to idle or a dead letter.” It added that once the govt has incorporated a provision such as Rule 12(1)(ee), “it casts a statutory duty on the Government to activate the said provision in the larger public interest”.The judges underlined that Rule 12 contains terms and conditions that are “inhered and ingrained in every mining lease”, and failure to comply with them obliges the state to act. “The state cannot remain static but should invoke such provision in the manner provided therein,” the bench said.
