From: Shankar Raghunath Jog,
Margawadi, Sancordem,
Via TISKA,
Phone No. [0832] 2611499 & 2611032.
e-mail: shankarjog@hotmail.com
Date:
Subject:
1. Objection for granting additional period of 2 years to M/s M. S. Talaulicar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., for removing of mining ore/rejection dumped in
2. Request to investigate irregularities committed by
Reference::
1. Letter no. 4-GOB423/2007/1300 dated
2. Application dated
To,
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Environment & Forest, Govt. of
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO complex,
2. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Regional Office [South Zone],
Ministry of Environment & Forest, Govt. of
Kendriya Sadan, 4th Floor, E&F Wings, 17th
3. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of
Panaji,
4. The Secretary (
Secretariat, Porvorim Goa.
Sir,
In the above context, I have to bring to your kind notice as follows:
1. In accordance with Lease Deed dated 11-7-1979 between M/s M.S.Talaulicar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., [presently represented by legal heirs and hereinafter called the “lessee”] and the President of India [represented by Collector of Goa and hereinafter called “lesser”], a plot admeasuring 12.9768 Ha. was leased for five years for dumping mining rejections. This plot falls in Survey No. 23/1 of village Darbandora, Taluka Sanguem,
2. The lessee had dumped rejection in this plot, probably during the tenure of this lease. In the concerned file made available to the undersigned,
a) No record of total quantity or dump wise quantity of rejection dumped is available with the authorities.
b) No plan of this plot and dumps made there, drawn during the tenure of lease, is available with the authorities.
c) No record of any activity by the lessee in this plot for last 25 years [from 1984 to 2009] is available with the authorities.
3. The lease was for period of 5 years, ended in 1984, and hence is not subsisting presently.
4. The lessee, by letter dated 1-10-2007 addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Forests, Govt. of Goa, requested permission for removal of this rejection for upgrading to saleable grade ore, for the purpose of generation of employment, revenue to the State Exchequer, earn foreign exchange, etc.
5. Within a very short period of less than 2 months, permission was issued by the Dy. Conservator of
6. As witnessed by the undersigned, who resides close to this site, the ore/rejects were removed by the lessee during the months of October, November and December, 2009. No removal was done during year 2008 or January-September, 2009.
7. Under their letters dated
8. In accordance with a note issued by Dy. Conservator of
Further, it is the submission of the undersigned that:
9. In this case, Environmental Clearance is required, in accordance with Notification no. S.O. 1533 dated
10. Showing a dump occupying 4.9 Ha. is arbitrary. In fact, this is done to avoid/circumvent provisions EIA notification referred above. In the original request dated
11. The lease area of 12.9768 Ha. has to be considered, if at all it can be considered for removal of rejection, legally. Considering the area in parts is arbitrary and done to give undue advantage to the lessee which shows vested interest of those concerned.
12. There is no provision in the Lease Deed, to allow removal of rejection dumped.
13. After such a long period of more than 25 years, the lessee cannot claim ownership of dumped rejects legally and the Lease Deed has no provision to this effect and hence, it is a Govt. Property. Therefore, total value of removed rejects/ore should be deposited in Govt. treasury.
14. The lessee, in Form A referred above, has shown the quantity for removal as 50,000 tons. This is arbitrary as there is no record to show that this is correct. In fact, the undersigned has witnessed removal and transportation of ore/reject to the barge-loading point at Vagus (V.P.Palem,
15. The lessee claims that only 30% rejects is removed and 70% rejects is still lying there in this dump However, the fact is that only 5% reject is still lying there and 95% rejects are removed. . This can be verified by proper independent technical person at the site. The undersigned also has photos and videos taken on
16. As rightly noted by the Dy. Conservative of Forest, Monitoring & Evaluation [Goa Govt,], in his note dated 25-2-2010, “this seems this is the only case where the ore rejects/dumps was allowed for keeping/dumping in Forest area outside the lease and was permitted to be removed”. One can easily imagine the cause of this unusual approval.
17. This survey no.23/1 forms part of
18. The lessee has not demarcated the plot with cement concrete pillars, as per condition imposed while giving permission for removal of rejects.
19. The Dy. Conservator of
a) Area consists of artificially planted (mainly) Acacia & Cashew. If this area is planted artificially [apparently by no other than Forest Dept.], then how it is that the lessee claims that this area is devoid of any trees and barren ?
b) The forest area proposed for removal of rejects has been demarcated on the ground and the proponent has enclosed a detailed plan. However, no area is demarcated as seen and photographed by the undersigned on
20. All the trees are now cut and removed from this site. However, adjacent plots, where rejects was dumped, has natural growth of trees and one can visualize what would have been the natural growth in the plot from where rejects are removed.
21. The amount deposited by the lessee of Rs. 39,43,206/- works out to Rs. 78.86 per ton assuming there was only 50,000 tons of rejects. However, as stated above, nearly 2.5 lakhs tons rejects was removed and hence this cost works out to Rs. 15.77. This is meager considering that rate of ore exported is $ 130 i.e. Rs. 5,850/-. The lessee is thus making unreasonably huge profit, showing cost/benefit ratio as meager 4 by giving false information.
22. There is no mention of Royalty payable to State Exchequer, however royalty is payable as per MCR 60.
23. Violation of any condition of the approval by the lessee, approval stands automatically revoked. Condition for demarcating the land is already violated by the lessee and hence the approval granted stands revoked.
Therefore, the undersigned request you not to grant extension of further period of 2 years to the lessee, unless and until the issued raised above are solved legally, and Environmental Clearance is also granted under EIA notification referred above.
It is also brought to kind notice that in case permission is granted prior solving above issues and obtaining Environmental Clearance, the undersigned will be constrained to approach the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at
I am ready to extend my full co-operation to any authority in this regards.
Kindly inform me your decision in the matter.
Yours Faithfully,
Shankar R. Jog
No comments:
Post a Comment