NaMo, here is a matter of national security. Placer sand mining should be entrusted ONLY to Indian Rare Earths Limited, PSU under DAE, Govt. of India
Rape of thorium -- Sam Rajappa. NaMo, declare thorium-based nuke doctrine. Ask Army command to protect the world's largest placer sand reserves. This is world's wealth, making Bharat the trustee.
Against this background which exposed with impressive documentation and precision, the Great Thorium Robbery, I append two reports: 1. A report in the Junior Vikatan (Tamil) issue of 25 March 2015; and 2. A Writ Petition by Prof. Victor Rajamanickam in Madras High Court WP No. 1592 of 2015.
These background notes relate to the importance of beach sands of Bharatam which contain the world's largest reserves of monazite and other atomic minerals including rare earths.
In addition to these reports which point to dereliction of duty to conserve nuclear resources of the nation, there is a serious issue of the diminishing role assigned to Indian Rare Earths Limited, which is a PSU under the Dept. of Atomic Energy for building up monazite/thorium reserves to meet the needs of the Nuclear Doctrine of Bharat which is founded on building thorium-based nuclear reactors.
It is necessary for Govt. of India to review the alarming situation IMMEDIATELY and to restore the role of IREL in controlled mining of nuclear resources of monazite and other atomic minerals/rare earths in the placer sands of Bhimunipatnam (AP), Manavalakurichi (Tamil Nadu) and Aluva/Chavara (Kerala) which together constitute the largest monazite (thorium) reserves of the world. GOI should also institute measures to safeguard the placer sand resources and reserve mining operations of the placer sands ONLY to IREL under Dept. of Atomic Energy.
There is the related issue of cancelling the DAE notification of 20 January 2006 which included some atomic minerals under Open General License. This illegal notification should be cancelled forthwith. This is an illegal notification because the Act which listed the atomic minerals was not amended by Parliament and the hence, the notification was issued without the approval of Parliament. This notification is in the rule book and continues to provide a cover for including private mining of monazite (thorium) and related atomic minerals from the sand complex and even export under OGL to foreign destinations. Such acts should be stopped forthwith and the rich placer sand resources of the nation along the long coastline should be safeguarded as a matter of national security and utmost urgency.
Kalyanaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W.P No. 1592 of 2015
G. Victor Rajamanickam
21, Shanti Nagar,
Pillayarpatti Post,
Thanjavur District. … Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India
represented by the Secretary to Government
Government of India
Ministry of Mines,
“D” Wing, 3rd Floor,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Government of India,
Department of Atomic Energy,
Anushakthi Bhawan,
C.S.M Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Government of India,
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Pariyavaran Bhawan
C.G.O Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003.
4. The Regional Controller of Mines,
Indian Bureau of Mines,
Rajaji Bhawan,
Chennai – 600 090.
1stPage
Corrns
2
5. The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by
The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
6. The Secretary to Government,
Industries Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
7. The Commissioner of Geology and Mining
Government of Tamil Nadu
Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
Tamil Nadu.
8. M/s. V.V Mineral,
Keeraikaranthattu,
Tisaiyanvilai – 627 657.
Tirunelveli District,
Tamil Nadu.
9. M/s. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd.,
Keeraikaranthattu,
Tisaiyanvilai – 627 657.
Tirunelveli District,
Tamil Nadu.
10.M/s. Beach Mineral Sands Company,
132, Tiruchendur Road,
Kuttam – 627 651.
Tirunelveli District,
Tamil Nadu.
11.Mr. M.Ramesh
146, Palayamcottai Road,
Tuticorin – 628 003.
Tamil Nadu.
2ndPage
Corrns
3
12.Mr. K. Thangaraj
49A, Theppakkulam Street,
Tuticorin – 628 002,
Tamil Nadu.
13.M/s. Industrial Mineral India Pvt. Ltd
Raja Agency Business complex,
Madathur,
Thoothukudi – 620 008.
Tamil Nadu.
14.M/s. Vetrivel Minerals,
Keeraikaranthattu,
Tisaiyanvilai – 627 657.
Tirunelveli District,
Tamil Nadu.
15.M/s. Industrial Mineral Company,
No.2, Harrington Road,
K.R.M. Centre, 5th Floor,
Chetpet,
Chennai – 600 031.
Tamil Nadu.
16.M/s. Beach Minerals Co. India Ltd.,
133, Tiruchendur Road,
Kuttam - 627 651.
Tirunelveli District,
Tamil Nadu.
17.M/s. Beach Mineral Company Pvt. Ltd.,
BMC House,
32-2, Halls Road,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
Tamil Nadu.
18.M/s. Beach Mineraals Company,
32-2, Halls Road,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
Tamil Nadu.
3rdPage
Corrns
4
19.M/s. Balamurugan Company,
32-2, Halls Road,
Egmore,
Chennai – 600 008.
Tamil Nadu.
20.M/s. Indian Ocean Garnet Sands Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Tiruchendur Road,
Navaladi,
Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli Dist. – 627 657.
Tamil Nadu.
21.M/s. Earth Mineral Resources Pvt. Ltd.,
146, Palayamcottai Road,
Tuticorin – 628 003.
Tamil Nadu.
22.S.Vaikundarajan
Partner, V.V Mineral
Keeraikaranthatu,
Radhapuram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
23.Thiru. Gagandeep Singh Bedi I.A.S
Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
Tamil Nadu.
AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
1. I Victor Rajamanickam, S/o. S.Gnanamanickam, Christian, aged 71, residing at 21, Shanti Nagar, Pillayarpatti post, Thanjavur District, now at Chennai, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows.
2. The Petitioner is filing this Writ Petition pro-bono-publico in-re massive illegal beach sand mining in the Coastal Districts of Tamil Nadu by
4h Page
Corrns
5
Vaikundarajan the 22nd respondent herein and his associates with the active support of the political leadership and the bureaucracy.
3. The Petitioner is a citizen of India hailing from Usilampatti village, Madurai District, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is now residing at 21, Shanti Nagar, Pillayarpatti Post, Thanjavur District, Tamil Nadu.
4. The petitioner passed B.Sc., (Geology), M.Sc., Geology and joined the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad for pursuing Doctorate in Mining Geology. The petitioner was awarded Ph.D in Mining Geology by Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad. The petitioner underwent specialized training in Deep Sea Exploration in the Technical University, Aathen, Germany.
5. Petitioner served as a Scientist in the National Institute of Oceanography, Goa. The petitioner was designated as Chief Investigator to prepare a plan for Exploration of Coastal Placer Minerals. The petitioner surveyed the entire Coastal Region of India from Kutch to Kanyakumari and Kanyakumari to Kolkatta and identified 6 potential zones for beach sand mineral exploration.
6. The petitioner submits that during 1982, the advanced industrialized countries mocked India for claiming membership in International Sea Law Committee as a representative of the third world. The then Prime Minister of India wanted to demonstrate to the World that India is capable of the task and assigned the work of finding Manganese nodules in the deep sea to a team headed by the petitioner. The Government of India imported equipments from Germany and to land the equipments in Goa, the Goa Airport was declared as an International Airport.
7. The petitioner headed the expedition heading 20 scientists and 52 sailors. The team explored and found Manganese Nodules in Central Indian Ocean adjacent to Dioga Garcia. India became the 6th country in the World to
5th Page
Corrns
6
demonstrate its capability in Deep Sea Mineral Exploration. Pursuant to such achievement India became a permanent member of the International Sea Bed Authority.
8. The petitioner submits that after leaving National Institute of Oceanography, Goa in 1995, the petitioner joined Tamil University, Thanjavur as Dean of Science. The petitioner is now working as Director, Centre for Disaster Management, PRIST UNIVERSITY, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has been the guide for 46 Ph.D, 50 M.Phil, and 13 M.Tech. scholars.
9. The petitioner has authored 22 books. One of his books, “Handbook of Placer Deposits” is the first book on the subject in the World. Another book on Coastal Hazards is based upon his survey of the entire Coast of India. The book titled “Quaternary sediments shore line changes and sea level variation” is the only book on the subject on Indian Coast. The petitioner’s book on Tsunami titled “Tsunami” was printed and published by the Government of India and distributed throughout the World through Indian Embassies. The book was also distributed to the State Governments by the Government of India.
10.The Petitioner has to his credit numerous International publications in Oceanology, Geology, History of Science and other subjects. The petitioner was a member of the Indian Offshore Mining Law Framing Committee.
11.The petitioner submits that there is massive corruption and illegalities in mining of beach sand minerals such as Monazite, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Garnet, Leucoxene and other associate minerals in Tamil Nadu. The entire State machinery is subservient to the mafia involved in beach sand mining. There is reason to believe that the political leadership in the State is collaborating with the illegal sand mining lobby. There is every attempt by the State Government to protect the violators and to ensure that the truth is
6thPage
Corrns
7
suppressed. The judicial process is also abused and subverted to help the violators. In the above circumstances the petitioner is filing this writ petition in public interest.
12.The petitioner submits that the mining of beach sand minerals is governed by the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, the Environment Protection Act, the Atomic Energy Act, the Water Act, the Air Act and other allied laws, rules and regulations.
13.The petitioner submits that till 6.10.1998 atomic minerals such as Monazite, Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, Leucoxene could be mined only by the Indian Rare Earths Ltd, a company owned by the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. From 6.10.1998 to 1.1.2007 private operators were allowed to mine atomic minerals except Monazite subject to obtaining handling license under Atomic Energy (Working of Mines, Minerals and Handling of Prescribed Substances) Rules, 1984 and necessary lease under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act and other allied laws. After 1.1.2007, there is no necessity for obtaining handling license from the Department of Atomic Energy to mine atomic minerals. As for as Monazite is concerned only Indian Rare Earths Ltd, Manavalakurichi, Kanyakumari District is allowed to handle it.
14.The petitioner submits that the application seeking mining lease or prospecting license has to be submitted to the District Collector concerned wherein the mineral is available. The application is processed by the District Collector with the assistance of the Assistant Director or Deputy Director of Geology and Mining of the Districtconcerned. The District Collector forwards the application to the Commissioner of Geology and Mining, Chennai. The Commissioner of Geology and Mining after studying the proposal sends his recommendations to the Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. If the State Government is convinced of the proposal, the State Government have to forward the
7thPage
Corrns
8
application to the Government of India, Ministry of Mines. If the application for mining minerals include atomic minerals such as Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon and Leucoxene, the proposal has to be approved by the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India also. If the Central Government accords permission, the State government allots or grants the precise area for mining. Once the precise area of mining is allotted, the applicant has to submit the Mining Plan to the Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Rajaji Bhawan, Chennai - 90. The Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines has to ensure that the quantity of minerals available and allowed to be mined are based upon scientific assessment of minerals available in the site. The mining plan should contain the details of the area for mining. The total area should be divided into number of years for which the lease is sought. For the first five years, the area so divided should be duly marked in different colours. The Scheme of Mining has to be renewed once in five years by the Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Rajaji Bhawan, Chennai – 90.
15.The petitioner submits that under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification issued under the Environmental Protection Act mining of rare minerals in the Coastal Regulation Zone require prior approval and Environmental Clearance by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. Therefore, all applicants for mining mineral in the Coastal Regulation Zone have to submit the necessary application before the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India for Environmental Clearance. The application for Environmental Clearance is site specific and for each mining lease Environmental Clearance should be obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India.
16.The petitioner submits that the State Government or the Commissioner of Geology and Mining can grant the Mining Lease only on production of
8thPage
Corrns
9
Environmental Clearance grantedby the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest. Further for mining atomic minerals such as Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon and Leucoxene handling license issued by the Department of Atomic Energy was to be obtained till 1.1.2007.
17.The petitioner submits that mining lease cannot be executed in favour of the lessees unless the statutory requirements are fully complied with. Further, before mining is undertaken Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate the Mines have to be obtained from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
The entire area should be mapped by the lessee and the photograph should be submitted to Ministry of Environment and Forest. Sand dunes have to be preserved at all cost, since the sand dunes are protector of fresh water in the surface acquifier and the preserver of biota.
18.The petitioner submits that Mr. S. Vaikundarajan, the 22ndrespondent who is the Managing Partner of V.V Mineral, the 8th respondent herein. He is closely associated with the A.I.A.D.M.K Party. He was a major share holder in MIDAS, a company manufacturing Foreign Made Liquor with which the ruling AIADMK leaders are closely associated with. He was a major share holder in JAYA T.V, a TV channel devoted to promote AIADMK Party and its supremo the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.
19.Mr. S. Vaikundarjan is the Managing Director of M/s. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd. Beach Mineral Sand Company, the 10th respondent herein was originally under the control of Mr. S. Vaikundarajan. After partition in the family of Mr. S. Vaikundarajan, the 10th respondent company is owned by his brother. Respondent 11 and 12 are closely associated with Mr. S. Vaikundarajan.
20.The petitioner submits that the 8th respondent has 33 mining leases in Tamil Nadu. The 9th respondent has 14 mining leases. The 10threspondent has 10
9thPage
Corrns
10
mining lease. Respondents 11 and 12 have each 1 mining lease. All the above leases are within the Coastal Regulation Zone area.
21.The petitioner submits that respondent 8 to 12 form a single group. They have monopoly in getting leases for mining beach sand minerals in the Coastal districts of Tamil Nadu. The only exception is the Indian Rare Earths Ltd, a company under the control of Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India.
22.Respondents 13 and 14 are under the control of Mr. S. Vaikundarajan. 15threspondent is owned by one of the brothers of Vaikundarajan. Respondent 16, 17, 18 and 19 are associates of the 10th respondent. Respondent 20 and 21 are controlled by 11th respondent.
23.The petitioner submits that respondents 14 to 21 do not have any mining lease. They are either involved in mineral separation or export of the final product. Respondents 14 to 21 have been floated for the purpose of evading tax and royalty. The minerals are shown as transferred or sold by the lessees to respondents 14 to 21 for a low price for the purpose of evading royalty, sales tax and excise duty. Respondents 14 to 21 are inter linked with respondents 8 to 12 and are also answerable for illegal beach sand mining and illegal export of Atomic Minerals including Thorium rich Monazite.
24.The petitioner submits that one Dhaya Devadas has been fighting against illegal beach sand mining by Vaikundarajan and others in the Coastal Districts of Tamil Nadu. W.P (MD) No. 5549 of 2007 was filed on the file of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court by Federation of Indian Placer Mineral Industries of which Dhaya Devadas is the President. Dhaya Devadas also filed WP (MD) No. 1233 of 2012 on the file of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
10th Page
Corrns
11
25.The petitioner submits that the Writ Petitions were heard by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. When the Division Bench was hearing the Writ Petition, the District Collector, Thoothukudi submitted a report to the State Government as if he discovered large scale illegal mining by respondents 8 and 10. The Government of Tamil Nadu passed G.O Ms. 156 Industries (MMD.1) Dept dated 18.08.2013 suspending all mining operations in Thoothukudi District. It was followed by G.O Ms. No. 173 Industries (MMD.1) Dept dated 17.09.2013 suspending all mining operations covering 71 mining leases to the exception of mining leases in favor of the Indian Rare Earths Ltd, a company under the control of Department of Atomic Energy.
26.The petitioner submits that the Government of Tamil Nadu appointed a Committee headed by the 23rd respondent to probe illegal mining of rare earth minerals.
27.The petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to dispose of W.P (MD) No. 5549 of 2007 and W.P (MD) No. 1233 of 2012 by order dated 12.12.2013. The Hon’ble Division Bench has held as follows:
“However, we are conscious of the fact that the issues raised before this Court, relating to the alleged illicit mining of minerals in the coastal districts of State of Tamil Nadu and in the other areas of the state, are of public importance. We are also highly concerned about such issues as they also highlight the urgent need to protect and preserve the natural environment by preventing over exploitation of the natural resources of the country. There is no doubt that the governments concerned have to be vigilant in taking appropriate steps to strike a fine balance between proper utilization of the available resources and the preservation of such resources for posterity. We are also clear that such a balance can be achieved only on the basis of the necessary scientific data provided by persons, who are experts in their respective fields.
11thPage
Corrns
12
In such circumstances, in view of the fact that a committee of experts, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Gagandeep Singh Bedi, Secretary, Revenue Department, has been constituted by the State Government to examine, investigated and to file a report, after physical verification of the mining sites in question, we find it appropriate to permit the petitioner in the writ petitions, including those who are wanting to implead themselves in the writ petitions, to submit their representations to Mr. Gangandeep Singh Bedi, the Chairman of the Committee, along with the necessary documents, if any, within fifteen days from today. It is also made clear that it would also be open to the private respondents, who are parties herein, to submit their representations to the Chairman of the Committee, within the time specified above. On receipt o such representations, the Committee concerned shall examine the issues, by making necessary enquiries and investigation, and if necessary, by serving appropriate notices on the parties concerned, and file a report before the State Government, for necessary action, as expeditiously as possible.
In such circumstances, in view of the fact that the parties concerned have been given the liberty to place all the relevant materials before the Committee of experts, constituted by the State Government, we are not inclined to make any observations, with regard to the validity and correctness of the claims and the counter claims made by the parties before this court. It would be lent to the Committee concerned to check and to verify such claims, if necessary, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and to file its report before the State Government, as directed by this court, by this order. On receipt of such report it is for the State Government to take appropriate steps and to pass necessary orders, as it finds fit and necessary, in accordance with law”.
28.On behalf of respondents 8 to 20, W.P (MD) No. 8562 of 2014 was filed on the file of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court seeking to stay the operation of G.O Ms. 156 (Industries) dated 8.8.2013 and G.O Ms. No. 173
12thPage
Corrns
13
(Industries) dated 17.09.2013 and to issue transport permits. The High Court by order dated 29.5.2014 disposed of W.P (MD) No. 8562 of 2014 and ordered as follows
“In the above said circumstances, this court directs the first respondent to inform the Special Team / Committee to file a report within one month from today, as directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the first respondent is directed to pass orders, regarding vacate the stay, in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter and furnish a copy of the report to the petitioner’s Association immediately.”
29.The petitioner submits that the 9th respondent has filed W.P No. 16716 of 2014 on the file of this Hon’ble Court seeking to quash G.O Ms. No. 156 Industries Department dated 08.08.2013 and consequential G.O Ms. No. 173 Industries Department dated 17.9.2013. The Writ Petition is taken on file and interim order is passed.
30.The 8th respondent has filed W.P No. 19641 of 2014 on the file of this Hon’ble Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the committee constituted by the Government to comply with the order dated 12.12.2013 made in W.P (MD) No. 1233 of 2012 and also to forbear the 23rd respondent namely Mr. Gagandeep Singh Bedi, IAS from heading the Committee. In the said Writ Petition an interim order is passed which reads as follows,
“Since this Court has already granted an order of status quo in W.P No. 16716 of 2014 by order dated 26.06.2014 and the same is extended on 15.07.2014, there shall be an order of status quo in this writ petition till 18.08.2014. Consequently, the order of status quo granted in 16716 of 2014 is also extended till 18.08.2014.
13th Page
Corrns
14
It is made clear that this order will not in any way prohibit the Committee concerned in carrying on all other works in respect of other mining firms”.
31.The petitioner submits that Vaikundarajan, the 22nd respondent has caused filing of two Writ Petitions, one in the name of V.V Mineral and another in the name of M/s. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd. The motive behind filing such writ petitions with conflicting prayers is inexplicable.
32.The petitioner submits that the 10th respondent has not obtained Environmental Clearance for all the 10 leases. The 11th and 12threspondents do not have Environmental Clearance for mining rare minerals. Out of 14 mining leases in favour of the 9th respondent, the 9threspondent has Environmental Clearance for only one lease.
33.The petitioner submits that the 8th respondent claims that he managed to get Environmental Clearances by adopting foul means. The Environmental Clearances said to have been given to 8th respondent are not in conformity with the rules. The Environmental Clearance is site specific. The lease deeds cannot be executed before the grant of Environmental Clearance by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. The Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest cannot give Environmental Clearance post facto. Before mining, the entire sand dunes have to be mapped and the maps should be submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Sand dunes have to be protected.
34.The petitioner submits that the directions given by the Government of India under Sec. 5 of the Environment Protection Act is not obeyed by the State Government for the past 12 years. Orders obtained from the Civil Courts and other Courts are misused and misinterpreted by the officials to allow mining of rare minerals in violation of Environment Protection Act and the rules.
14th Page
Corrns
15
Before mining operation commences, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board should be obtained. The Pollution Control Board has given in many cases Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate post facto. This is logically not permissible.
35.The petitioner submits that after inspection of the mine site during 2007 the authorities have reported that mining is carried out by the lessees without Clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest and that the Sand dunes have been destroyed by the lessees. The reports also indicate digging of Canals by V.V Minerals and others to bring in Sea Water into the main land for industrial purposes. There is total violation of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act. Sec. 15 of the Environment Protection Act prescribes a sentence of 5 years for those who violate the provisions of the Act. Sec 16 deals with offences by Government departments, Courts cannot take cognizance of offence under the Act except on the complaint made by the Central Government or by the officer authorized by the Central Government. Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. An order dated 09.08.2007 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P. (MD) Nos. 6646 to 6648 of 2007 is misused and abused by the authorities to permit illegal mining without Environmental Clearance by the 10th respondent. Orders passed by the District Collectors pursuant to show cause notices issued in 2007-2008 and reply given by the lessees refer to an interim order passed by the Civil Court in IA No. 213/2007 in OS No. 113/2007. The District Collectors have no power to issue show cause notices and to close the files in the manner it was done.
36.The petitioner submits that the 9th respondent has 14 mining leases. In W.P (MD) No. 1233 of 2012, the Government of India filed a counter affidavit stating that the Scheme of Mining submitted by the 9th respondent Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd was rejected on 13.02.2012 in respect of 3 mining leases and rejected on 17.02.2012 in respect of 8 mining leases. For the remaining 3 mining leases there were no applications for renewal of
15thPage
Corrns
16
Scheme of mining. The transport permits issued by the District officials reveal that despite rejection of Scheme of Mining submitted by the 9threspondent in February 2012, the 9th respondent was allowed to quarry minerals and transport the same and permits were freely issued by the authorities. The authorities would not have blatantly violated the law but for illegal dictates of powers that be.
37.The petitioner submits that the 9th respondent has filed W.P Nos. 12849 of 2014 to 12861 of 2014 on the file of High Court of Madras stating that the 9threspondent submitted Scheme of Mining on 20.9.2013 and the same was rejected on 6.3.2014. The High Court has passed an order granting interim stay. The 9threspondent claims that 9th respondent is entitled to quarry and transport minerals. Similarly, 8th respondent has filed W.P Nos. 12862 to 12880 of 2014 on the file of the High Court against the order passed by the Regional controller of Mines and has obtained an order of stay and claims that the 8th respondent is entitled to quarry and transport minerals. The Writ Petitions had been allowed on 7.7.2014.
38.The petitioner submits that the Show Cause Notices issued by the District Collectors to respondents 8 to 12, the reply submitted by respondents 8 to 12 and the orders passed by the District Collectors conclusively prove active collaboration of the officials in helping the violators. The District Collector have been periodically sending reports and passing orders claiming that there are no violations. The State Government had been sending false reports to the Central Government stating that there was no illicit mining. The District Collectors have indicated that they were passing such orders on instructions. The Show Cause notices issued by the District Collectors contain the particulars of excess transport permit issued by the officials. What is baffling is that the show cause notices were closed by the District Collectors and the officials continue to issue transport permit in far excess of the quantity permitted. The officials continued to issue transport permit
16thPage
Corrns
17
though the Scheme of Mining submitted by respondents 8, 9 and 10 have been rejected. W.P Nos. 12849 of 2014 to WP No. 12861 of 2014 filed by the 9th respondent and W.P 12862 of 2014 to W.P 12880 of 2014 filed by 8th respondent and the interim orders passed by the High Court reveals the enormity of the violations of the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act as well as Judicial process.
39.The 11th respondent was granted a mining lease for an area measuring 1.13.0 Hects for a period of five years commencing from 17.07.90 to 16.07.1995. The total quantity of ROM is 90,800 M.T.Actually the ROM cannot be 90800 M.T. It cannot exceed 38900 M.T by considering the bulk density. The 11thRespondent claims that he is permitted by interim orders to continue mining in the same area. The Show Cause notice dated 27.07.2007 issued by the District Collector, Tirunelveli discloses that between 2001-2002 to 2006-2007, the 11threspondent was given transport permits for 3,72,000 M.T. After the show cause notice 2007- 2008 he has been given transport permit for ROM 4,16,000 M.T. till September 2013. Though, he has no Environmental Clearance, he continues to mine and gets transport permits. The case of the 12th respondent is also similar. The orders passed by the District Collector permitting them to continue illegal mining speak for themselves. The entire State machinery is involved in illegal mining. Respondent 9 and 10 continue to mine and transport minerals despite rejection of Scheme of Mining by the Regional Controller of Mines. The subordinate officials of the Revenue Department working under the District Collector will not allow such massive illegal mining unless there is interference from the political leadership.
40.The petitioner submits that M/s. V.V. Mineral, the 8th respondent has filed W.P (MD) No. 2671 of 2013 contending that he should be permitted to handle Monazite for production of Rare Earth Oxide. It is claimed in the Writ Petition that he made an application for grant of handling license for
17thPage
Corrns
18
handling Monazite. The counter statement filed by the Secretary to Government, Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy states that Monazite is a highly radioactive mineral and that only M/s. Indian Rare Earth Ltd, a wholly owned public sector undertaking of the Central Government (Department of Atomic Energy) is permitted to handle the Monazite and they alone are granted handling license to deal with Monazite. W.P (MD) No. 2671 of 2013 and W.P (MD) No. 9183 of 2013 are pending.
41.The petitioner submits that the State Government have on their own without reference to the Central Government namely Ministry of Mines and the Department of Atomic Energy have included Monazite and other minerals in 16 mining leases in favor of the 8th respondent. The State Government has thus violated the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and Atomic Energy (Working of Mines, Minerals and Handling of Prescribed Substances) Rules 1984.
42.The petitioner submits that till 1998, all the lessees had to handover the Monazite tailings to the Indian Rare Earths Ltd, Manavalakurichi. Respondents 8 to 12 have not accounted for the Monazite tailings till date. During 2004 the 8threspondent had stated that the 8th respondent had 300 Acres of Land to bury Monazite tailings. A Press Release issued by the Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy, Public Awareness Division dated 19.10.2012 states that the Government have not allowed export of Monazite and the reports appearing in the Media are not true. The Hon’ble Minister of State in a the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pension in a written reply in the Lok Sabha had stated that the 8th respondent had been permitted to store Monazite tailings in the plant premises. Respondents 8 to 12 should account for the Monazite tailings. An impartial enquiry has to be conducted. If Monazite tailings are not preserved, but are transported outside the country it will be an anti national act.
18thPage
Corrns
19
43.The petitioner submits that from the areas leased to respondents 8 to 12 it is impossible to mine and export such huge quantity of Garnet, Ilmenite and Rutile. On a conservative estimate respondents 8 to 12 should have illegally mined the minerals in 12000 Hects of Land in addition to the existing lease hold areas.
44.The petitioner submits that inclusion of Monazite in the leases granted to 8threspondent by the State Government without reference to Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy is illegal. All those responsible for including Monazite in the leases granted to 8th respondent are liable to be prosecuted and punished under the Atomic Energy Act.
45.The petitioner submits that the Show Cause Notices issued against Respondents 8 to 12 during 2007 inter alia contain the following allegations (a) Violation of Environment Protection Act, (b) Destruction of Sand Dunes, (c) Illegal Mining, (d) Mechanical Mining and (e) Excess issue of transport permits. The orders passed by the District Collectors closing the Show Cause notices and permitting respondents 8 to 12 to continue illegal mining requires probe and action.
46.The petitioner submits that the orders passed by the Government of India granting Environmental Clearance enmass for unsurveyed Coastal Poramboke Lands clearly establish illegalities, irregularities and corruption in granting Environmental Clearance. W.P (MD) No. 16924 of 2012 filed against Vaikundarajan on the subject illustrate the same.
47.The petitioner submits that the State Government officials granting transport permit without regard for the mining plan and the quantity permitted to be mined would establish involvement of the entire revenue administration in illegal beach sand mining. Beach Mineral sand Company, M/s. Transworld Garnet India Pvt. Ltd., and Vaikundarajan have been mining and
19th Page
Corrns
20
transporting Garnet, Ilmenite and other minerals with the active cooperation of the officials, even though the Scheme of Mining have been rejected by the Indian Bureau of Mines. There is corruption and involvement of All India Services officers, officials of the Revenue Department and the officials of the Geology and Mining Department.
48.The petitioner submits that though the Government of Tamil Nadu allegedly stopped mining throughout Tamil Nadu and prohibited issue of transport permits, the particulars of transport permits issued by the officials and the quantity of minerals exported by V.V Minerals and others after the ban orders during August and September 2013 clearly establish that the ban orders issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu is not given effect.
49.The petitioner submits that the Hindu, a Tamil daily has published series of Articles in their publications dated 19.08.2014, 20.08.2014 and 21.08.2014 stating that illegal beach sand mining is going on unchecked in the Coastal Areas of Tamil Nadu till today.
50.The petitioner has filed a copy of the report submitted by the P.N. Unnirajan IPS to the Government of Kerala. The report discloses illegal beach sand mining by Vaikundarajan of V.V Mineral in the State of Kerala also.
51.The petitioner is amused to find that the Government of Gujarat has recommended grant of 1653.14 Hects of land for mining placer minerals in the Coastal Districts of Gujarat. There are no such placer minerals in Gujarat and the petitioner state that beyond Tharapur in Maharashtra placer minerals are not available for mining. Vaikundarjan is attempting to get a foot hold in the Coastal Districts of Gujarat for reasons best known to himself.
52.The petitioner submits that while approving the Mining Plan and Scheme of Mining the officials of the Indian Bureau of Mines have failed to quantify the minerals available on any scientific basis. The tonnage assessed is not
20th Page
Corrns
21
traceable to any mineralogical rule. The tonnage given are all imaginary and fixed to suit the quantum of export. The rejection of Scheme of Mining submitted by the lessees now after the filing of Public Interest Litigations on the ground that there is no replenishment of the minerals as claimed by the lessees would establish that the Indian Bureau of Mines was guilty of granting approval of Mining Plan and renewal of Scheme of Mining till the filing of Writ Petition by Dhaya Devadas. Indian Bureau of Mines is also guilty of approving the Mining Plans in such a way to facilitate massive illegal mining by respondents 8 to 12.
53.The petitioner submits that V.V Mineral and others have not accounted for the Monazite tailings. The fact that the State Government have on its own granted illegally permission to mine Monazite, Zircon, Leucoxene and Sillimanite by modifying 16 existing mining leases without reference to the Central Government and the Department of Atomic Energy establishes the complicity of the political leadership in illegal beach sand mining. The District Collectors, and others including officers belonging to the All India Services would not have acted on their own and modified the mining leases to include Monazite in the existing mining leases of V.V Minerals unless they were commanded to do so by the political leadership in the State.
54.The petitioner submits that the entire Coastal areas of Kanyakumari, Tirunelveli and Tuticorin Districts have been damaged. The ecology is in peril. It has also caused health hazards.
55.The petitioner submits that the illegal beach sand mining and export of illegally mined minerals such as Monazite, Ilmenite etc have been going on with the active support of officials and political heavy weights. The estimated value of illegally mined minerals is more than One Lakh Crore of Rupees.
21st Page
Corrns
22
56.The petitioner submits that there is massive corruption and illegality in beach sand mining. The Environment Protection Act, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, the Atomic Energy Act and the
rules framed under have been violated. The Sand Dunes have been indiscriminately destroyed. There is large scale violation in the matter of payment of royalty, sales tax and central excise duty. There is a reason to believe that huge quantities of Thorium rich Monazite have been clandestinely moved out of the country. The offenders have to be brought to justice. The State Government officials have been passing orders and sending reports claiming that there is no illegal beach sand mining in Tamil Nadu. The officers are privy to fraud and corruption. The interview given by the former Chief Minister and published in Namadhu MGR dated 20.04.2007 clearly establishes the link between the political leadership, officials and the illegal beach sand mining lobby headed by Mr. Vaikundarajan.
57.The petitioner submits that the Government of Tamil Nadu have allowed M/s. V.V. Minerals and others to export 4,55,232 M.T. of placer minerals from 18.09.2013 to 30.05.2014after the passing of G.O. No.156 Industries (MMD.1) Department dated 08.08.2013 and G.O. No.173 Industries (MMD.1) Department dated 17.09.2013. The report in the Tamil daily Hindu proves mining of minerals by the Beach Sand Mining Lobby despite the ban.
58.The petitioner states that the subsequent events after the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Division Bench in W.P. (MD) No. 5549/2007 and W.P. (MD) No.1233/2012 clearly establish that the State Government have been trying to help the illegal beach sand mining lobby. The Committee headed by Mr. Gangadeep Singh Bedi cannot be expected to expose the political leadership which is responsible for such massive illegal beach sand mining.
22nd Page
Corrns
23
59.I submit that I have filed the Writ Petition in public interest. I have no personal interest. The allegations made in the affidavit are based upon my personal knowledge and on the basis of documents filed before the Court in earlier proceedings. I submit that I have been meeting the expenses from my own funds. I submit that in the event of writ petition being dismissed and cost is imposed I will pay the same.
60.The petitioner submits that in the above circumstances having no alternative and efficacious remedy he is filing this writ petition in public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking justice.
61.The petitioner submits that he has not filed any other proceedings with respect to the same cause of action.
The petitioner therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction in the nature of a writ directing investigation by a special investigation team to probe illegal beach sand mining in the coastal districts of Tamil Nadu and to bring the offenders to justice and pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai Before me
on this 17th day of October, 2014
and signed his name in my presence. Advocate Chennai
Page…23 & Last Page
Corrns..
The relevant portion of the Public Interest Litigation petition filed in Madras High Court by Dr. G. Victor Rajamanickam
1. (15) The petitioner submits that under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act and the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification issued under the Environmental Protection Act mining of rare minerals in the Coastal Regulation Zone require prior approval and Environmental Clearance by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. Therefore, all applicants for mining mineral in the Coastal Regulation Zone have to submit the necessary application before the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India for Environmental Clearance. The application for Environmental Clearance is site specific and for each mining lease Environmental Clearance should be obtained from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India.
2. (33) The petitioner submits that the 8th respondent claims that he managed to get Environmental Clearances by adopting foul means. The Environmental Clearances said to have been given to 8th respondent are not in conformity with the rules. The Environmental Clearance is site specific. The lease deeds cannot be executed before the grant of Environmental Clearance by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. The Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest cannot give Environmental Clearance post facto. Before mining, the entire sand dunes have to be mapped and the maps should be submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forest. Sand dunes have to be protected.