SC TALKS TOUGH (Herald)

SC TALKS TOUGH September 26, 2013 Says court will decide if mining ban is to continue Warns counsels not to raise technicalities GERARD DE SOUZA NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday did not entertain the verbal submissions made by the advocates representing the mining companies that the petition should be dismissed because it is based entirely on the Shah Commission report and according to the Commission of Inquiry Act. A furious judge asked the counsels not to raise technicalities. Issuing stern warning, the Court said, “We will decide, if we want to continue with the ban we will continue with the ban. It is our right. If we are going to argue only on the basis of Shah Commission, we will not finish this even within six months.” It asked the counsels to refrain from raising technicalities of the Shah Commission again also thereby rejecting the submission to dismiss the petition based on those grounds. Earlier, the State counsel Arvind Datar, pointed out how the Shah Commission made serious observations against the State government and against officials by naming their designation saying that the Shah Commission was bound to hear them if it is writing against them. “There is a conclusion that is drawn (against us) without the opportunity to be heard. This is unwarranted. We have not been heard... You (Shah Commission) may be right but at least hear us,” Datar argued. However, the Judge pointed out that there was a PAC report which covers the same period as the Shah report and it being a Legislative Committee was valid and hence the arguments that they have not been heard were not acceptable. “We are not trying to look at it only from the Shah Commission. We’re only assessing what relief can be granted to the petitioner. We are not deciding based on the Shah Commission alone, it is not binding on us. We’ll go on individual assessment on what is to be done.” The Court also wanted to know whether any of the miners had approached the Shah Commission seeking to be heard, to which the lawyers for the counsels said that they had written to the Shah Commission but there was no response. In his concluding arguments Adv Datar impressed upon the Court that the petition that was filed was ‘immature’ as the petitioner had directly approached the Court without exhausting his opportunity to approach the State government first. “The basis for mandamus is that you seek relief from the Court only once you find that the government is not acting.” Datar also pointed out that the State will do its duty from now on if given a chance. “Give us a chance we have just come to power. Please leave us alone and we will do that by ourselves. If we don’t perform as per the law, the Court is free to take action,” Datar submitted. However, he informed the Court of a new development. He said that the Dhanbad-based Indian School of Mines (ISM), a "deemed university", had been recruited by the MOEF to do a macro EIA of Goa State and that its report would be ready by the end of September. Though he said he had not seen the report, he appeared to be keen to rely on it. As if on cue, Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for Vedanta, immediately popped up to sing the virtues of the ISM. He ended his praises of this institution by saying he was saying all this because he knew the "other side" was going to object to the ISM report. Advancing his arguments for the first time in the case for Ministries of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the Mining, Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran said "I may concede that Environment Clearance Certificates (ECCs) were granted considering environmental impact assessment of private experts and most of them (ECCs) are indefensible." Auctions not allowed by Act: State, Centre Both Adv Arvind Datar as well as the Solicitor General Mohan Parasaran submitted before the Court that the MMDR Act, did neither have provisions for auction, and further that they said that preference for leases should be given to persons or companies to meet conditions stipulated in the Act. “The Acts rule out an auction,” Datar said, with Parasaran quoting previous Supreme Court orders which said that auction did not apply to the MMDR Act. http://www.heraldgoa.in/News/Main%20Page%20News/SC-TALKS-TOUGH/79938.html