Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, May 15, 2005

About Us
Contact Us
Karnataka
News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Karnataka Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Can KIOCL be closed by deadline?

Alladi Jayasri

Govt. dragging its feet on compliance with Supreme Court order Govt. dragging its feet on compliance with court order


  • Deadline: December 31, 2005
  • Govt. pulled up for `lack of seriousness'
  • India lacks expertise in mine closure process
  • CAG puts environmental loss caused by KIOCL at Rs. 139.15 crores

    BANGALORE: The State Government appears to be dragging its feet on the issue of compliance with the Supreme Court order on the winding up of Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd. (KIOCL) by the December 31, 2005 deadline.

    The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) of the Supreme Court, which has recommended the closure of KIOCL, has pulled up the State Government several times for its procrastination and "lack of seriousness" in the smooth facilitation of the closure of the mines.

    The State Government could be inviting more trouble with the Monitoring Committee comprising officials from the Union and State Governments, experts and NGO representatives reportedly entertaining a request from KIOCL and pleading its cause with the Government. The company wants to continue mining primary ore in the existing broken area and 54 hectares of unopened forest where it proposes to take up slope stabilisation and other safety measures. The Monitoring Committee constituted by the Centre is mandated, under the supervision, guidance and monitoring of the CEC, "only to monitor the implementation of the rehabilitation plans." Mining has been allowed till December 2005 subject to fulfilment of the recommendations of the CEC on eco-restoration and other aspects.

    Law Department sources told The Hindu that this puts the Government in "an embarrassing situation," since its report card on compliance in the KIOCL case leaves much to be desired. Forest Department sources said efforts at compliance with the Supreme Court orders on closure of the KIOCL mines are "being frustrated" by such attempts, while the State Government continues to attract the Supreme Court's ire.

    Apart from this, sources say, India is utterly lacking in expertise in the mine closure process, as KIOCL is the first major operation to be asked to close down. The Monitoring Committee itself could earn the wrath of the Supreme Court for exceeding its mandate by engaging with KIOCL instead of coming up with a solid plan for the exit of the mining company from the Kudremukh National Park.

    Despite clear directions from the Supreme Court and its undertaking in an affidavit, the State Government is yet to include 3,703 hectares of forest area, which it had excluded while issuing the final notification for the Kudremukh National Park. Its attempts to accommodate KIOCL by excluding the area under mining in the park had earned for the State Government its first reproof from the Supreme Court.

    Environmental loss

    The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) in his audit report for the year ended March 31,2003 has assessed the environmental loss caused by KIOCL at Rs. 139.15 crores. There has been no effort on the part Government to recover this amount from the company.

    Printer friendly page  
    Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

    Karnataka

    News: Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
    Advts:
    Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |


  • News Update


    The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
    Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |

    Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu