Table Of Content

¸ÀA¥ÀÄl 150 ¨¨ÉÉAAUUÀÀ¼¼ÀÆÀÆggÀÄÀÄ,, UUÀÄÀÄggÀÄÀÄªªÁÁggÀÀ,, dd££ÀÀªªÀÀjj 2222,, 22001155 ((ªªiiÀÀ ÁÁWWÀÀ 22,, ±±ÀÀPPÀÀ ªªÀÀµµÀÀðð 11993366) ¸ÀAaPÉ 4 Volume 150 Bengaluurruu,, TThhursday, January 22, 2015 (MMaagghhaa 22,, SShhaakkaa VVaarrsshhaa 11993366) Issue 4 ¨sÁUÀ 1 gggÁÁÁdddååå ¸¸¸ÀÀÀPPPÁÁÁðððgggÀÀÀzzzÀÀÀ ªªªÀÄÀÄÀÄÄÄÄRRRååå DDDzzzÃÃÃÉÉÉ ±±±ÀÀÀUUUÀÀÀ¼¼¼ÄÄÄÀÀÀ ºººÁÁÁUUUÆÆÆÀÀÀ ¸¸¸ÀÀÀÄÄÄvvvÉÆÉÆÉÆÛÃÛÃÛÃ¯¯¯ÉÉÉ ªªªÀÄÀÄÀÄÄÄÄAAAvvvÁÁÁzzzÀÀÀ JJ¯¯ÁÁèè EE¯¯ÁÁSSÉÉUUÀÀ½½UUÆÆÀÀ ¸¸ÀÀAA§§AA¢¢üü¹¹zzÀÀ DDzzÃÃÉÉ ±±ÀÀUUÀÀ¼¼ÀÀÄÄ CCOOMMMMEERRCCEE AANNDD IINNDDUUSSTTRRIIEESS SSEECCRREETTAARRIIAATT Subject: MMMiiinnniiinnnggg LLLeeeaaassseee NNNooo... 222666666111 gggrrraaannnttteeeddd iiinnn fffaaavvvooouuurrr ooofff SSShhhrrriii RRR... PPPrrraaavvveeeeeennn CCChhhaaannndddrrraaa fffooorrr IIIrrrooonnn ooorrreee aaannnddd Manganese ore ooovvveeerrr aaannn aaarrreeeaaa ooofff 111333222...333000 hhheeeccctttaaarrreeesss ooofff RRRaaammmaaajjjjjjaaannnaaahhhaaalllllliii KKKaaavvvaaalll aaannnddd MMMaaallllllaaapppuuurrraaa VViillllaaggeess,, HHoossaadduurrggaa TTaalluukk,, CChhiittrraadduurrggaa DDiissttrriicctt - Regarding premature termination. READ : 1. LLeetttteerr NNoo.. DDMMGG//MMLLSS//CCEECC//22001133-1144,, ddaatteedd 2299//66//22001133 ffrroomm DDiirreeccttoorr,, DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff MMiinneess aanndd GGeeoollooggyy. 2. GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt ooff KKaarrnnaattaakkaa NNoottiiffiiccaattiioonn NNoo. Cl 34 MMMMM 22000099 ((PP)),, ddaatteedd 1122//1100//22001100.. 3. NNoottiiffiiccaattiioonn ddaatteedd 3311//1122//11998800 ((GGaazzeetttteedd oonn 88//11//11998811)) bbyy DDiirreeccttoorr,, DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff MMiinneess aanndd GGeeoollooggyy.. 4. LLeetttteerr NNoo.. DDMMGG//MMLLSS//MMLL-2661/2013-14, dated 30/8/2013 from Director, DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff MMiinneess aanndd GGeeoollooggyy. PREAMBLE : DDDiiirrreeeccctttooorrr,,, DDDeeepppaaarrrtttmmmeeennnttt ooofff MMMiiinnneeesss &&& GGGeeeooolllooogggyyy vvviiidddeee llleeetttttteeerrr dddaaattteeeddd 222999///666///222000111222 rrreeeaaaddd aaattt (((111))) aaannnddd 333000///888///222000111333 rrreeeaaaddd aaattt (((444))) aaabbbooovvveee,,, hhhaaasss rreeccoommmmeennddeedd ffoorr tthhee pprreemmaattuurree tteerrmmiinnaattiioonn ooff MMiinniinngg LLeeaassee NNoo.. 22666611 ggrraanntteedd iinn ffaavvoouurr ooff SShhrrii RR.. PPrraavveeeenn CChhaannddrraa ffoorr IIrroonn oorree aanndd MMMaaannngggaaannneeessseee ooorrreee ooovvveeerrr aaannn aaarrreeeaaa ooofff 111333222...333000 hhheeeccctttaaarrreeesss ooofff RRRaaarrrnnnaaajjjjjjaaannnaaahhhaaalllllliii KKKaaavvvaaalll aaannnddd MMMaaallllllaaapppuuurrraaa VVViiillllllaaagggeeesss,,, HHHooosssaaaddduuurrrgggaaa TTTaaallluuukkk,,, CCChhhiiitttrrraaaddduuurrrgggaaa DDDistrict. DDiirreeccttoorr,, DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt ooff MMiinneess && GGeeoollooggyy hhaass ffuurrnniisshheedd tthhee ddeettaaiillss aass ffoolllloowwss:: (a) A NNNoootttiiifffiiicccaaatttiiiooonnn dddaaattteeeddd 333111///111222///111999888000 (((GGGaaazzzeeetttttteeeddd ooonnn 888///111///111999888111))),,, rrreeeaaaddd aaattt (((333))) aaabbbooovvveee,,, wwwaaasss uuu///rrr 555888 ooofff MMMiiinnneeerrraaalll CCCooonnnccceeessssssiiiooonnn RRRuuullleeesss,,, 111999666000 iiinnnvvviiitttiiinnnggg aaappppppllliiicccaaatttiiiooonnnsss fffooorrr mmmiiinnniiinnnggg mmmaaannngggaaannneeessseee ooorrreee (((aaattt ssseeerrriiiaaalll nnnuuummmbbbeeerrr 444 ooofff ttthhheee nnnoootttiiifffiiicccaaatttiiiooonnn))) ooovvveeerrr aaannn aaarrreeeaaa ooofff 111333222...333000 hheeccttaarreess iinn MMaallllaappuurraa vviillllaaggee,, HHoossaadduurrggaa ttaalluukk,, CChhiittrraadduurrggaa ddiissttrriicctt.. FFoouurr aapppplliiccaattiioonnss wweerree rreecceeiivveedd aanndd aallll wweerree rejecctteedd iinncclluuddiinngg tthhaatt ooff oonnee SShhrrii EE.. RRaammaa MMuurrtthhyy.. (b) SSSuuubbbssseeeqqquuueeennntttlllyyy,,, aaa ppprrrooossspppeeeccctttiiinnnggg llliiiccceeennnccceee (((PPPLLL))) NNNooo... 333222555777 wwwaaasss sssaaannnccctttiiiooonnneeeddd tttooo ooonnneee SSShhhrrriii DDD... SSSrrriiikkkaaannntttaaaiiiaaahhh fffooorrr llliiimmmeeessstttooonnneee ooovvveeerrr on aaarrreeeaaa ooofff 777444...999000 hhheeeccctttaaarrreeesss iiinnn MMMaaallllllaaapppuuurrraaa vvviiillllllaaagggeee,,, HHHooosssaaaddduuurrrgggaaa tttaaallluuukkk,,, CCChhhiiitttrrraaaddduuurrrgggaaa dddiiissstttrrriiicccttt fffooorrr aaa pppeeerrriiioooddd ooofff 222 yyyeeeaaarrrsss fffrrrooommm 111777///444///111999888666... TTThhheee PPPLLL hhhooollldddeeerrr hhhaaaddd fffiiillleeeddd aaa mmmiiinnniiinnnggg llleeeaaassseee aaappppppllliiicccaaatttiiiooonnn iiinnn NNNooo... 888222 AAAMMMLLL 111999888777 ooonnn 111888///444///111999888777 ooovvveeerrr aaannn eeexxxttteeennnttt ooofff 118877 aaccrreess iinn MMaallllaappuurraa vviillllaaggee,, HHoossaadduurrggaa ttaalluukk,, CChhiittrraadduurrggaa ddiissttrriicctt ffoorr lliimmeessttoonnee,, bbuutt tthhee ssaammee wwaass rreejjeecctteedd oonn 444///111000///222000111000 aaafffttteeerrr fffooollllllooowwwiiinnnggg ddduuueee ppprrroooccceeeddduuurrreee aaasss ttthhheee llliiiccceeennnssseeeeee fffaaaiiillleeeddd tttooo fffuuurrrnnniiissshhh rrreeeqqquuuiiisssiiittteee pppaaarrrtttiiicccuuulllaaarrrsss iiisss ssspppiiittteee ooofff ssseeevvveeerrraaalll ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess bbeeiinngg ggiivveenn aanndd aallssoo tthhee mineral applied ffoorr wwaass lliimmeessttoonnee wwhheerreeaass nnoottiiffiiccaattiioonn wwaass ffoorr ddiiffffeerreenntt mineral. (c) FFFuuurrrttthhheeerrr,,, MMM///sss... VVVaaannniiivvviiilllaaasss MMMiiinnneeesss &&& MMMiiinnneeerrraaalllsss hhhaaaddd mmmaaadddeee aaannn aaappppppllliiicccaaatttiiiooonnn ooonnn 222666///444///222000000222 fffooorrr gggrrraaannnttt ooofff mmmiiinnniiinnnggg llleeeaaassseee fffooorrr lliimmeessttoonnee,, ddoolloommiittee aanndd lliimmee kkaannkkaarr oovveerr aann aarreeaa ooff 110000 aaccrreess iinn ssuurrvveeyy nnuummbbeerr 88 aanndd 99 ooff MMaallllaappuurraa VViillllaaggee,, (81) 8 2 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvæÀ, UÄÀ gÄÀ ªÁgÀ, d£ÀªÀj 22, 2015 ¨Ás UÀ 1 Hosadurga taluk, Chitradurga district, but the same was rejected as the mineral applied for was different from the notified material. (d) Shri E. Rama Murthy had applied on 6/2/2002 for grant of mining lease for iron are and manganese over an area of 510 acres in Ramajjanahalli Kaval and Mallapura Village, Hosadurga taluk, Chitradurga district, taking advantage of the fact that no time limit (cut off date) was prescribed in the said notification dated 31/12/1980 (Gazetted on 8/1/1981) for receiving applications. (e) Shri E. Rama Murthy had submitted a revised sketch on 31/5/2002 reducing the area to an extent of 380 acres. It was found that the area applied for falls within the notified area for manganese. Shri E. Rama Murthy had made an application for the same minerals and there were no other applications for the said minerals. On reference, Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Chitradurga sent technical report on 18/11/2002 stating that the available mineral in the applied area is manganese. (f) The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga in his letter dated 7/6/2004 declined to issue no objection certificate on the ground that the area applied for is adjacent to Vanivilas Sagar, if lease was granted, the waste soil eroded from mining will flow into the dam and cause water pollution in the dam, which is used for supply of drinking water to Hiriyur town. (g) Further, on the request of Shri E. Rama Murthy in his letter dated 8/7/2004 that the area applied was more than 3 to 4 Kms away from the Vanivilas Sagar dam, the same was referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, who in his letter dated 22/6/2005 agreed for grant of mining lease subject to getting approval from the appropriate authority regarding conservation of soil / prevention of soil erosion by the applicant. In the mean time, consequent to the death of Sri E. Rama Murthy, his son Shri R. Praveen Chandra has been recognized as legal representative. (h) On 27/3/2008 Shri R. Praveen Chandra submitted mining plan and Environmental Clearance, except KSPCB clearance. The recommended area measures 380 acres, part of the area measuring 293 acres falls within the notified area and an extent of 43 and 44 acres falls outside the notified area in two parts. For the notified area, applications from the following were received: (1) Shri. G. Dayananda, 986 AML 2008, dated 20/6/2008 (2) M/s Sharanya Exports, 1719 AML 2008, dated: 12/11/2008 (3) M/s Koppal Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., 1724 AML 2008, dated 17/11/2008. (4) M/s Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., 1725 AML 2008, dated 17/11/2008. (i) On submission of the proposal, the State Government, after hearing all the five applicants and restricting the area to 132.20 hectares, recommended the application of Shri R. Praveen Chandra to Government of India on 10/9/2009. In these recommendations, it is observed that the applicant R. Praveen Chandra already holds an existing mining lease number 2294 at Chitradurga and the applicant proposes to establish 0.5 MPTA capacity integrated Steel Plant at Bhadravathi taluk, Shimoga District and the minerals so extracted will be utilized for the captive purpose. Hence the prior approval as per Section 5(1) of MMDR Act, 1957 for grant of mining lease over an area of 132.30 hectares for iron and manganese ore for a period of 20 years was sought from Government of India. It is to be observed here that the ore notified is manganese and while sending the proposal to the Government of India recommendation was made for iron and manganese ore as a result of value addition. (j) The Government of India vide its letter dated 23/7/2010 accorded approval for grant of mining lease for iron and manganese ore. The State Government issued notification dated 12/10/2010, read at (2) above, for iron ore and manganese over an extent of 132.30 hectares in favour of Sri. R. Praveen Chandra for a period of 20 years. During Survey and Demarcation the area was restricted to 122.22 hectares and accordingly mining lease was executed on 27/5/2011. The remaining notified area of 10.10 hectare was coming in the limits of Mallapura village and back water of Vanivilas Sagar. (k) Meanwhile the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP 7366-77/ 2010 c/w WP (Civil) No 562/2009 had constituted Joint team to conduct survey and demarcation of existing mines in Bellary, Chitradurga and Tumkur districts. After the joint survey it was found that the enjoyment to the sanctioned lease sketch area of many mining leases had inherent defects. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 13/4/2012 and 20/4/2012 has accepted the CEC report and directed to resume mining operations in respect of 'A' category mines only after completion of R&R plan prepared by ICFRE, subject to acceptance by CEC at the costof lessee, (1) Following this, the Directorate of Mines and Geology Department, to ensure that there is no deviation in the sanctioned sketch to that of the enjoyment, issued a circular on 19/9/2011 to all the district officers to verify the lease sketch with reference to notification and survey and demarcation sketches, survey number wise. The Deputy Director has not reported any discrepancy/difference in the notified and executed sketch of the Mining Lease No ¨sÁUÀ 1 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvæÀ, UÄÀ gÄÀ ªÁgÀ, d£ÀªÀj 22, 2015 83 2661. At this juncture the Directorate felt it was necessary to ensure that no difference / deviation has taken place while granting the mining leases and decided to re-examine all the related files once again before actual mining starts. At the time of examining the file it was found that the mining plan approved by IBM in case of Shri R. Praveen Chandra did not tally with the notified area sketch. As such the Director, Mines and Geology issued show cause notice to Shri R. Praveen Chandra and heard the matter and has observed that the preliminary notification dated 31/12/1980 (published in Gazette dated 8/1/1981) was for manganese ore, whereas the final notification for grant of lease was for iron and manganese ore and the mining plan approved by IBM did not tally with the granted sketch. Hence The Director, Mines and Geology in his letter dated 29/6/2013 read at (1) above has recommended for premature termination of mining lease bearing number 2661 over an extent of 122.22 hectares in Ramajjanahalli Kaval and Mallapura villages of Hosadurga taluk, Chitradurga district where lease was executed for iron ore and manganese. 2) The main reasons for recommending for premature termination are as follows: a. That when the notification was for manganese ore only, the grant proposal/notification / execution of lease deed should not have been considered for iron ore without any corrigendum. b. The Deputy Director, Chitradurga reports the availability of good manganese ore in the applied area and has not confirmed the occurrence of iron ore. c. Since M/s Vanivilas Mines and Minerals application was rejected on the grounds that the applicant had applied for the ore which is different to that of the notified ones, the same analogy applies to R. Praveen Chandra. d. The Government issued grant notification after obtaining prior approval of Government of India for the precise area with location map boundaries mentioned therewith in contravention of the provisions of Rule 59 of MCR 1960. e. That the granted sketch and the sketch attached to mining plan approved by IBM is not tallying and differ from one another. 3) The Government based on the recommendation of the Director, Mines and Geology decided to hear the Lessee and notice was issued on 30/7/2013. The case was heard on 8/8/2013, 19/8/2013 and 21/7/2014. Shn R. Praveen Chandra was given all opportunities as per principle of nature justice. He filed replies on 8/8/2013 and additional statement on 21/7/2014. The arguments of Shri R. Praveen Chandra were heard. 4) Following are the points raised in the arguments of Sri. R. Praveen Chandra. a. The lease is executed for an area of 122.22 hectares as against the notified area of 132.30 hectares, as the reduced area of 10.10 hectares falls in the village limit. b. In the reply to the Show Cause Notice on 5/7/2012 it was submitted that the variation in the applied sketch to that of the sketch in the IBM plan arose as the approval for mining plan from IBM was obtained on 22/8/2006 for an area of 153.78 hectares whereas the Government after hearing all the applicants proposed to the Government of India for an area of 132.30 hectares on 30/9/2009. This submission was not considered by the Director, Mines Geology. c. He agrees that the difference in sketch submitted to the IBM and the sketch of the notified area is due to bonafide error and is neither intentional nor deliberate. He also submits that he will undertake not to commence or carry out mining operations until the sketch attached to ML 2661 is modified by the State Government and until he obtain a fresh modified mining plan approved by IBM in accordance with the modified sketch. d. That the State government has no power conferred under the provision of MMDR Act 1957 or MC Rules 1960 to prematurely terminate the mining lease. It is only the Government of India for reasons specified under Section 4A(1) of MMDR Act 1957 can make premature termination of the mining lease. 5) In view of the above irregularities reported and on the recommendations of the Director, Department of Mines & Geology for the premature termination of Mining Lease No. 2661 granted in favour of Shri R. Praveen Chandra for Iron ore and Manganese ore over an area of 132.30 hectares of Ramajjanahalli Kaval and Mallapura Villages, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, the matter has been heard and examined by framing the following issues: (a) Can the mining plan which has been already approved by the IBM be modified? (b) What mineral is to be extracted from the mining area? (c) Whether the mining lease executed should be terminated. 6) During the course of hearing and on examination of the submission made by the lessee and available records, the following facts have been observed. (a) For (a) it is seen that initially Shri E. Rama Murthy after applying for a Mining Lease over an area of 510 acres (206.17 hectares) on 6/2/2002 submits a revised sketch on 31/5/2002 for an extent of 380 acres (153.78 hectares) 8 4 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvæÀ, UÄÀ gÄÀ ªÁgÀ, d£ÀªÀj 22, 2015 ¨Ás UÀ 1 out of the original applied area. It is seen that the revised sketch submitted by the applicant for mining lease as well as for the mining plan submitted to the IBM is made for 153.78 hectares whereas the area recommended to the Government of India is 132.30 hectares, hence the difference. Rule 22 (6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 allows for modification in the mining plan with the prior approval of the competent authority. Hence mining plan can be subjected to modification. (b) For (b) it is seen, that the notification published in the Gazette on 8/1/1981 for an area of 132.30 hectares was notified for manganese ore only whereas the application is made both for iron and manganese ore. The report of the Deputy Director, Chitradurga also confirms the availability of manganese. It is seen that before recommending to the Government of India for prior approval the contention of the applicant to establish 0.5 MPTA capacity integrated Steel Plant at Bhadravathi taluk, Shimoga District and the minerals so extracted to be utilised for the captive purpose was considered. As per the notification the permissible ore to be extracted is for manganese only and the lessee is entitled for the mineral which is notified. Hence he is not eligible for winning the iron ore mineral at this juncture. (c) For (c) it is seen that the applied revised sketch (which falls partially in notified area and partially in virgin area) and the notified sketch are not one and the same. If the sketches of the notified area, revised sketch by the applicant and the survey & demarcation are taken into consideration, it is found that the notification was issued for an area of 132.30 hectares. The area was restricted to 122.30 hectares after survey & demarcation and the area would have been further reduced if it was limited to applied sketch portion of the notified area. Thereby applicant has been granted more area for which application was not made which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further, as discussed above, since the recommendation in favour of the applicant considering his proposed investment in Iron and Steel industry is based on iron ore mineral which was not included in the notification, it would be appropriate to accept the report of the Director, Mines and Geology dated 29/6/2013 and recommend to the Government of India for prematurely cancelling the mining lease 2661 issued in favour of R. Praveen Chandra. 7) After completing all the process, the decision of the Government is concluded as follows. GOVERNMENT ORDER No. CI 110 MMM 2013 BANGALORE, DATED 7TH OCTOBER. 2014 In view of the explanations given in the above paras, with respect to the recommendation of the Director, Department of Mines & Geology for the premature termination of Mining Lease No. 2661 granted in favour of Shri R. Praveen Chandra for Iron ore and Manganese ore over an area of 132.30 hectares of Ramajjanahalli Kaval and Mallapura Villages, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District the Government hereby orders as follows: (a) To accept the proposal of the Director, Mines and Geology for premature termination of the mining lease 2661 and send a proposal to Government of India in this regard. (b) To cancel the Notification dated 31/12/1980 (Gazetted on 8/1/1981) issued by Director, Department of Mines and Geology, with respect to serial number 4 therein, inviting applications for mining manganese ore, over an area of 132.30 hectares in Mallapura village, Hosadurga taluk, Chitradurga district and to go in for fresh notification; and (c) To cancel Notification No. C1 34 MMM 2009 (P), dated 12/10/2010, granting mining lease for iron ore and manganese over an extent of 132.30 hectares in favour of Sri. R. Praveen Chandra for a period of 20 years. By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka E. SHIVARUDRAPPA PR. 804 Under Secretary to Government (Mines) Commerce and Industries Department SC. 100 COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES SECRETARIAT Subject : Mining Lease No. 2654 granted in favour of Shri K.N. Srinivasa for Iron ore, Manganese ore and BHQ over an area of 25-2 acres in Kammatheravu (Deogiri) Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District - Regarding premature termination. READ : 1. Letter No. DMG/MLS/ 1122AML/05/2012-13, dated 28/9/2012 from the Director, Department of Mines & Geology 2. Letter No. DMG/MLS/ 1122AML/05/2005-06, dated 9/1/2006 from the Director, Department of Mines & Geology 3. Government of Karnataka letter No. CI 11 MMM 2006 dated 5/6/2007 ¨sÁUÀ 1 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvæÀ, UÄÀ gÄÀ ªÁgÀ, d£ÀªÀj 22, 2015 85 4. Government of India, Ministry of Mines letter No. 5/97/2007 - MIV, dated 10/7/2007. 5. Government of Karnataka Notification No. CI 11 MMM 2006, dated 3/9/2007 6. Letter No. REV/GANI/177/2006-07, dated 7/10/2011 from Deputy Commissioner Bellary 7. Letter No. REV/GANI/63C/2011-12, dated 20/11/2011 from Deputy Commissioner, Bellary 8. Letter to CEC No. REV:GANI:63:11-12- dated 24/5/2013 from Deputy Commissioner, Bellary PREAMBLE : Director, Department of Mines & Geology vide letter dated 28/9/2012 read at (1) above, has recommended for the premature termination of Mining Lease No. 2654 granted in favour of Shri K.N. Srinivasa for Iron ore, Manganese ore and BHQ over an area of 25- 2 acres in Kammatheravu (Deogiri) Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. Director, Department of Mines & Geology and has furnished the details as follows: (a) Shri K.N. Srinivasa had made an application for a mining lease for Iron Ore. Manganese, BHQ over an area of 25.02 acres in field number 1 of Kammaterevu (Deogiri) village (unsettled) in Sandur taluk of Bellary District vide his application No. 1122 AML dated 23/9/2005. In the application, the applicant had mentioned that the lands referred to were "patta lands" owned by him as well as by various surface right holders obtained under saguvali chits as detailed below: Sl. Survey No Extent Name of the occupant/ No. (pymasi) (acres-cents) Pattadar as per RTC 1 39,42,47 M/P 13 3.00 Shri K.N. Srinivasa 2 IM/P10 2.00 Shri K.N. Srinivasa 3 39, 42, 47 M/P 14 4.97 Smt. N. Pushpa 4 39,42,47 M/P 14 2.33 Shri Nanjunda Reddy 5 01 2.22 Shri Maliyappa 6 01/MP22 1.50 Shri Krishnappa 7 01/mp 18 2.00 Shri D. Ningappa 8 29/MP 6.00 Shri S. Bylappa 9 39,42 & 47 MP-9 1.00 Shri Krishnappa (b) On verification of records it was found that entire are applied for lease overlapped with the areas covered in 5 earlier applications and also with the held & surrendered area of M/s. SMIORE: Sl. No. Details Remarks 1 138 APL 93 / Rejected by Government on 8/3/1994 24/9/2013 2 228 AML 93 / Rejected by Government on 5/3/1994 28/8/1993 3 374 AML 4 / Applicant has not produced consent letters from Pattadars as required 16/7/2004 u/r 22(h) of MCR, 1960 4 387 AML 04 / Application belonged to the present applicant and has since withdrawn 24/7/2004 5 945 AL 00 / Application belonged to the present applicant and has since withdrawn 30/7/2004 (c) Since the applicant was a pattadar, holding consent letters from other pattadars, Director, Department of Mines & Geology had sent a proposal to Government for grant of mining lease to Shri K.N. Srinivasa vide letter dated 9/1/2006 read at (2) above. Government of Karnataka had sent a proposal to Ministry of Mines, Government of India, vide letter dated 5/6/2007 read at (3) above, seeking prior approval by invoking provision of rule 59 (2) of MCR. 8 6 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvæÀ, UÄÀ gÄÀ ªÁgÀ, d£ÀªÀj 22, 2015 ¨Ás UÀ 1 (d) Subsequently, the applicant was asked to produce the mmmg plan approvco by Iridian Bureau of Mines (IBM), CFE from Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) and Environment Clearance from Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) on 30/1/2006. Letters were addressed to the Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Hospet for furnishing the technical report in respect of the applied area and the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District for a No Objection Certificate. Deputy Director of Mines & Geology, Hospet sent report vide his letter dated 21/6/2006 recommending the case for grant of lease confirming the availability of ore reserves. The report of the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District had not been received as on that date. The applicant had submitted the mining plan approved by IBM on 19/8/2006. (e) As per Section 5(1) of MMDR Act 1957, the State Government had sent a proposal to the Ministry of Mines, Government of India in its letter dated 05/06/2007 seeking prior approval for grant of mining lease to the applicant. Government of India vide its letter dated 10/7/2007, read at (4) above, conveyed its approval, besides relaxation u/r rule 59(2) of MCR, 1960. Thereafter, State Government issued orders granting mining lease to the applicant for iron ore, manganese & BHQ over an area of 25.02 acres in Kammateruvu (Deogiri) Village (unsettled), Sandur taluk, Bellary District vide Notification dated 3/9/2007, read at (5) above. In pursuance thereof, the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Hospet had sent a report on 9/9/2008 after completing the Survey & demarcation of the lease area as required under rule 33 of MCR 1960. (f) Even after lapse of one year from the date of grant of mining lease, the applicant had not produced the No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the revenue authorities. On the other hand, in his letter dated 1/9/2008, the applicant had made a request to send another letter to the revenue authorities for furnishing the NOC in respect this lease on the premise that the earlier letter sent by this Directorate to the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary was not traceable in that office. Considering the request made by the grantee, another letter was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary on 27/9/2008 enclosing a copy of the earlier one seeking. This was followed by one more reminder on 8/9/2009. (g) The grantee had produced Environmental Clearance obtained from SEIAA, Karnataka on 21/10/2009. However he had sought condonation of delay in executing the lease deed on the ground that clearance from KSPCB was awaited. (h) The Deputy Commissioner, Bellary vide his letter dated 29/10/2009 had conveyed his opinion not to grant the mining lease in the applied area. He had also enclosed a copy of his earlier report dated 26/02/2007 wherein he had indicated that some patta lands in the applied area were granted in contravention of Section 58 of Land Reforms Act. (i) In the meantime, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary, in his letter dated 28/9/2010 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary, informed that the sanctioned area was not a forest area. Although the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary had earlier opined against grant of mining lease, conveyed his no objection to the grant of mining lease to Shri K.N. Srinivasa vide his letter dated 29/9/2010. (j) In the meantime, the grantee produced Consent for Establishment (CFE) given by KSPCB on 2/2/2010. The State Government vide its letter dated 19/11/2010 condoned the delay in executing the lease deed. Further, upon production of required statutory documents viz. Mining Closure Plan, proof of having paid EPF, digital sketch, copy of challan for having paid the conversion fee, payment of security deposit etc., lease deed under No. 2654 was executed on 30/12/2010 for a period of 20 years. (k) Although the lessee had not produced copy of the Order of conversion issued as per Section 95(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the matter was again referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary. The Deputy Commissioner, Bellary, in his letter dated 7/10/2011, read at (6) above, had pointed out various fallacies in the grant of NOC to the lessee and also stated that no conversion permission was granted to the lessee in respect of the land referred nor the mining lease holder had applied for it. (l) Towards affording an opportunity of making a representation, the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary had issued a Notice to the lessee on 15/10/2011. Since the lessee failed to furnish his explanation, the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary in his Order dated 20/11/2011, read at (7) above, withdrew the No objection Certificate granted to the lessee earlier. Similarly, Department of Mines & Geology also issued a notice to the lessee calling upon him to show cause as to why the mining lease granted to him should not be terminated prematurely. But the lessee, instead of furnishing his reply, resorted to correspondence and even to this day he has continued to do so. (m) In the meantime, one Smt. Durgabai Tambde filed objection, through her Advocate, against commencement of mining operations by the lessee stating that the lessee had trespassed into her landed property in survey number 39, 42, 47-M/P8, measuring 3.50 acres situated at Deogiri village and attempting to conduct illegal mining activity therein. Further, one Shri M.P. Nataraj complained that the lessee not only hushed up the fact of withdrawing his earlier Application No. 374 AML 04 but also misrepresented the facts by stating that the lands applied for were patta lands while in actuality, they were revenue lands. ¨sÁUÀ 1 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvæÀ, UÄÀ gÄÀ ªÁgÀ, d£ÀªÀj 22, 2015 87 (n) The Joint Team constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Order dated 13/6/2011 in SLP No. 7366-77/2010 c/w WP (Civil) No. 562/2009, conducted survey and demarcation of iron ore mining leases in Bellary district and submitted its findings to the Apex Court. Further, CEC had submitted its final report to the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 3/2/2012 in which the mining lease granted to Shri K.N. Srinivasa figured under Category-B with regard to the fact that encroachment in the form of over burden dump over an extent of 0.13 hectares was found in this mining lease. Moreover, the CEC had also been apprised of various violations pointed out by the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary in his letter dated 7/10/2011. (0) The Department of Mines and Geology had issued circular instructions to all its field officers at the district level on 19/9/2011 to furnish details as to whether the extent of area granted/ surveyed and demarcated and the area reflected in the lease deed executed are one and the same. Keeping this aspect in view and having regard to the details stated above, the case was taken up for further verification. On such further verification, it was found that the lessee had not submitted consent letters obtained from the pattadar /s in respect of pymasi survey number 39,42,47 MP9, to an extent 3.50 acres. Besides it was also noticed that the consent letter given by Shri D. Ningappa S/o Rajappa in respect of survey number 01/MP 18 was for 2.00 acres while the extent in his name was only 0.50 acres. 2) Based on the report of the Director, Mines and Geology, the State Government issued notice to the lessee of Mining Lease No. 2654 Shri K.N. Srinivasa on 10/10/2012 giving him opportunity of being heard. The Lessee in his letter dated 18/10/2012 submitted that he has requested the Director on 28/6/2012 to provide some documents but he has not received the same, and hence requested to postpone till such time the documents are given to him. Hearing was conducted 23/1/2013, 11/2/2013, 15/6/2013, 22/6/2013, 15/7/2013, 23/7/2013 and concluded on 2/8/2013. The lessee had submitted his reply to the Secretary to Government, Commerce & Industries Department, Government of Karnataka on 25/6/2013. However the hearing was conducted afresh on 21/7/2014, wherein the Lessee submitted to consider his earlier submission made on 19/6/2013. 3) The lessee of Mining Lease No. 2654 Shri K.N. Srinivasa, in his written argument dated 19/6/2013, has submitted as follows: (a) The Deputy Commissioner and the Director have deliberately suppressed the letter written by them to the CEC CIne non-acceptance of the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner by the CEC. The Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the title of the properties. (b) All the lands are patta land and the lessee has obtained the consent of these pattadars for obtaining mining lease. In case of survey number 39,42, 47M 14 measuring 2 acres 33 cents and 4 acres 97 cents application was made to the Tahasildar for grant since they were cultivating the said land and the Tahasildar has granted saguvali chit dated 24/5/2003 and 23/4/2003 with a condition that the grantee should not alienate for a period of 15 years. (c) Regarding the surrendered area of SMIORE the relaxation is obtained under Rule 59 (2) of the MCR 1960. (d) That before execution of lease deed an application to the Tahasildar was made on 13/12/2010 for grant of permission from agriculture land to mining purpose. The Tahasildar wrote to the Deputy Commissioner to grant conversion of those lands for mining purpose on 18/12/2010, The lease was executed on 30.12.2010. A sum of rupees 5,44,892 was paid as conversion fee on 20/12/2010. The Deputy Commissioner has not passed any order till today on conversion and if he has not passed any order within 120 days from the date of application it is deemed conversion as per Section 95 (5) of Karnataka Land Revenue act. Henee the rl.een;ed convc-sion from agriculture to rmrung purpose. (e) Regarding the submission of the Deputy Commissioner to the Member Secretary of CEC for cancelling the mining lease granted, the CEC after recording the objection raised by Smt. Durgabai Tambde and the proceedings of the Assistant Commissioner dated 24.6.2011, stated that the tribunal has rejected the application way back in 1984 and there is no merit in the claim. (f) The Rule 108 (J) (i) does not apply to this case as the lands are not sold. 4) With all the above argument, the Lessee of Mining Lease No. 2654 Shri K.N. Srinivasa, has requested to reject the report of the Deputy Commissioner and Director of Mines and Geology and to direct the Director of Mines and Geology to implement the decision of CEC. 5) Meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District, in his letter dated 24/5/2013, read at (8) above, addressed to the Member Secretary, Central Empowered Committee (CEC) , has pointed out following irregularities with respect to the Lessee of Mining Lease No. 2654 of Shri K.N. Srinivasa: (a) Fictitious grant orders have been created in respect of area to an extent of 4.97 acres and 2.33 acres in Pymasi No, 39, 47/MP.1 in favour of Smt. N. Pushpa and Shri N. Nanjunda Reddy and mutated in their names. (b) The Lessee has not got the lands converted for non-agriculture purposes before applying for mining lease. (c) Even in respect of other survey numbers, they were Inam land and hence area was not correctly identified and sketches were manipulated. 8 8 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvæÀ, UÄÀ gÄÀ ªÁgÀ, d£ÀªÀj 22, 2015 ¨Ás UÀ 1 (d) There were no Sakrama Samiti resolutions in proof of grants. (e) Assistant Commissioner, Bellary has conducted detailed enquiry and passed orders cancelling the grant made in respect of Pymasi No. 39, 42, 47/M.P14 measuring 7.30 acres, and in RTC &, mutations lands are shown as Government lands. 6) The Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District, in view of the series of irregularities noticed and the offences committed by 8hri K.N. Srinivasa, has recommended for placing the Mining Lease No. 2654 of Shri K.N. Srinivasa in 'C' category and to stop all the mining activities in that regard. 7) In view of the above irregularities reported and on the recommendations of the Director, Department of Mines & Geology for the premature termination of Mining Lease No. 2654 granted in favour of Shri K.N. Srinivasa for Iron ore, Manganese ore and BHQ over an area of 25-2 acres in Kammatheravu (Deogiri) Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District, the matter has been heard and examined by framing the following issues: (a) Whether the lessee has the right over the said lands. (b) Whether to terminate the mining lease based on the report of the Director, Mines and Geology. 8) During the course of hearing and on examination of the submission made by the lessee and available records, the following facts have been observed. (a) It is seen that the application is made for an area of 25.04 acres in patta land. Out of 6 survey numbers, two survey number are held by the applicant (extent 5 acres), two survey numbers where land is granted by sakrama samithi (extent 7 acres 30 cents) and two other survey number by different person (3 acres 72 cents). All the process regarding grant of mining lease was carried out and lease deed executed. It is seen that no survey and demarcation has been done nor conversion of agriculture land to other purpose which is one of the condition for taking the activity of mining has been done. In this case it is seen that the land which is agriculture land has not been converted for non-agriculture purpose. The lessee applies for conversion of the land to the Tahasildar who in turr- sends to the Deputy Commissioner for further order. Since the Deputy Commissioner has not passed any order within 120 days the lessee is of the view that the land has been deemed conversion. Even though the law permits for deemed conversion if a decision is not taken within 120 days the purpose for which the land would have been used after conversion has to be taken into consideration. Even though the Deputy Commissioner has issued a notice to the lessee on 15/ 10/2011 to explain his view on the conversion of land the lessee has failed to reply to the notice. It is seen that the same attitude is continued with the Director, Mines and Geology who had show caused him for premature termination of the mining lease wherein the lessee do not reply but restores to protracted correspondence. If the lessee had any issues regarding the conversion of the said land he could have replied to the notices issued by various authorities and also would have applied afresh for conversion, the same not been done. Section 95 (1) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 allows agriculture land for purposes like buildings or construction of wells or tank whereas section 95 (2) of the said Act clearly indicates that any occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose of agriculture wishes to divert such land or any part thereof to any other purpose, he shall apply for permission to the Deputy Commissioner. Hence the lessee had to apply before the Deputy Commissioner which has not been done. In a similar type of case the Hon 'ble Court has dealt with the provision of deemed conversion of agriculture land in Writ Petition No. 20380 of 2010 (N. Nanjappa Vs The State of Karnataka) which is placed in the file. The Hori'ble Court has dismissed the same concluding that without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to make a fresh application in accordance with law with the following observation: "opinion that this is not a fit case for exercistnq the discretionaru jurisdiction in favour of a person like the petitioner, whose application, in the first instance, does not appear to be in order, as the application itself is addressed to tahsildar, uiho is not the authority to qrani permission for conversion" A statutory deemed permission is not a desirable prouision, which is more often than nor misused or abused and what withy letharainess, being leqendaru on the part of revenue officials coupled with increasing corrupt elements in the revenue department, who can in. a given case even where the application is totallu undeserving or an application is in respect of some land belonging to some other person or even government land can deliberatelu be kept pending for four months to enable the statutoru provision to operate for a deemed permission, is nothing short of an obnoxious provision and to the detriment of the larger public interest. (b) Any change of land use for other purpose, application for conversion has to be made by the land owners. There are no records to show that the application is made by the concerned land owners. The lessee fails to prove the same and has only relied on the deemed conversion which is not correct. If he was aggrieved by any act of the Revenue Authorities the same could have been challenged before the Appellate Authority which is not made. ¨sÁUÀ 1 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvæÀ, UÄÀ gÄÀ ªÁgÀ, d£ÀªÀj 22, 2015 89 (c) Regarding the applicability of Section 108(i) and (j) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 the condition is that the grantee shall not alienate the land nor use it for non-agriculture purpose for a period of fifteen years from the date of issue of Saguvali chit or certificate grant to him. Hence it is a clear violation of the statute since the granted land to the extent of 7 acres 30 cents is being used for non agriculture purpose. (d) In the case of land granted to an extent of 7 acres 30 gunta by the sakrama samithi has been cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner as no file is available to authenticate the grant of land thereby vesting the land with the Government. Also it is stated that the consent of pattadars to an extent of 3.5 acres has not been submitted by the lessee and in one of the consent for 2.00 acres, the pattadar had rights over half a acre of land. On records these have not been challenged by the lessee before any authority or substantiate the position during submission before this authority. (e) It is also seen that Inam land in other survey number exists and since no sketches and no settlements were there the area is not correctly identified and sketches were manipulated to obtain the mining lease. Hence he does not have right over the entire land. (f) The lessee has submitted that the CEC had mentioned that the lessee will be eligible to undertake mining operation only if permission for non agriculture use of private lands included in the mining lease is granted after due process of law. There is no dispute that he is eligible for undertaking mining operation after all due process of law regarding conversion are completed. Now the question arises on the extent of land for which the lessee can be allowed mining activities, as the lessee is left out with only 13 acres 72 cents at present whereas the notification and lease executed is for 25.02 acres as discussed in the above paras. As per the notification there is ambiguity in the right over the extent of land by the lessee and the status of the land for which the notification needs to be cancelled. Hence it would be appropriate to cancel the notification and terminate the mining lease. 9) After completing all the process, the decision of the Government is concluded as follows : GOVERNMENT ORDER No: CI 211 MMM 2013, BENGALURU, DATED 7th OCTOBER 2014 In view of the explanations given in the above paras, with respect to the recommendation of the Director, Department of Mines & Geology for the premature termination of Mining Lease No. 2654 granted in favour of Shri K.N. Srinivasa for Iron ore, Manganese ore and BHQ over an area of 25-2 acres in Kammatheravu (Deogiri) Village, Sandur Taluk, Bellary District, the Government hereby orders as follows: (a) To accept the proposal of the Director, Mines and Geology for premature termination of mmmg lease 2654, and cancellation of Notification No. CI 11 MMM 2006, dated 3/9/2007, granting mining lease to Shri K.N. Srinivasa; and (b) To recommend to the Government of India for premature termination of mining lease 2654 on grounds of non adherence to conversion of agriculture land and the holdings of extent of land not being as per the claim of the lessee. By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka PR. 805 E. SHIVARUDRAPPA Under Secretary to Government (Mines) SC. 100 Commerce and Industries Department COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES SECRETARIAT Subject : Milling Lease Application No. No. 911-AML-2005 filed by Srnt. R. Kasturi Radhakrishnan for grant of mining lease in survey number 150 of Jammapura Village, Jagalur Taluk, Davanagere District over an area of 31 .16 hectares for manganese ore and iron ore - Regarding withdrawal of recommendation. READ : 1. Communications from Director, Department of Mines 8: Geology a) Notification dated 31/12/1980 b) No. DMG:MLS:911-AML-2005/08-09, dated 18/6/2008 c) No. DMG:MLS:911-AML-2005/ 12-13, dated 30/1/2013 d) No DMG:MLS:911AML 2005:2014-15, dated 28/6/2013 e) No. DMG/MLS/911-AML-2005/13-14, dated 8/1/2014 f) Check list dated 4/1/2014 g) No. DMG:MLS:911AML 2005:2014-15, dated 5/7/2014 h) No, DMG:MLS:911AML 2005:2014-15 .. dated 19/7/2014 i) No. DMG:MLS:911AML 2005:2014-15, dated 26/7/2014 j) No. DMG/MLS/911AML 2005/14-15, dated 4/8/2014 9 0 PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥ÀvæÀ, UÄÀ gÄÀ ªÁgÀ, d£ÀªÀj 22, 2015 ¨Ás UÀ 1 2. GOK Notification No. CI 9 MMM 2002, dated 8/12/2004 3. GOK Letter No. CI 274 MMM 2008, dated 17/3/2012 4. GOI letter No. 5/22/2012-M-IV, dated 1/5/2012 5. Proceedings of the Secretary to Government, Commerce 8: Industries Department dated 28/8/2013 6. Written statement by Smt. R. Kasturi Radhakrishnan, wlo Shri Radhakrishna Pillai dated 25/512013, 23/6/2014, 5/7/2014 and 19/7/2014 7. GOK Notification No. CI162 MMM 2006, dated 16/112007 PREAMBLE : Director, Mines and Geology Department, vide his letter dated 30/1/2013, read at (1-c) above, had submitted a proposal to withdraw the recommendation made to Government of India vide letter dated 17/3/2012, read at (3) above, in respect of mining lease application No. 911 -AML-2005 filed by Smt. R. Kasturi Radhakrishnan (hereinafter called Applicant) for grant of mining lease in survey number 150 of Jammapura Village, Jagalur Taluk, Davanagere District over an area of 31.16 hectares for manganese ore and iron ore for a period of 30 years, the reason being that the prospecting license was not granted in accordance with the prevailing law and prospecting is not done as specified. Contentions made by the Director, Mines and Geology Department, vide his letter dated 30/1/2013, read at (1) above, are as follows: a) Shri Radhakrishnan Pillai had applied for Prospecting License for an area of 40 hectares on 18/11 /1998 and the Government vide notification dated 8/12/2004, read at (2) above, granted prospecting license 3357 for a period of three years in favour of Smt. R. Kasturi Radhakrishnan (legal heir of Sri. Radhakrishnan Pillai since deceased) over an area of 38.55 hectares for manganese ore, considering it as a virgin area. The area so granted for prospecting license falls within the notified area. The Government had earlier called for applications for grant of mineral concession vide Notification dated 31/1211980, read at (i-a) above, for an area of 430.99 hectares in Jammapura village, Jagalur taluk, Chitradurga District (Now in Davanagere District) for manganese ore, Pursuant to the notification 13 applications were received. The prospecting license was granted in violation of rule 59 of MCR, 1960 as the applications received in response to the notification were pending. b) The Applicant neither submitted quarterly reports, as specified in the prospecting license deed book (Forrn-R), nor reports as mentioned in rule 16(1) & (2) of MCR, 1960. The Applicant had submitted four months monthly reports for manganese ore from March 2005 to June 2005 on 21/7/2005 even though the lease period was to expire on February 2008. c) The Applicant had applied for grant of mining lease vide application No. 911 AML 2005 on 21/7/2005 for manganese ore within five months of granting of prospecting license without submitting the final report on prospecting as per rules, nor intimating the completion of prospecting. Hence the Applicant had applied for grant of mining lease when the prospecting license was still in force. The Applicant has carried out incomplete prospecting work which clearly shows that she had got prospecting license only to get preference uls 11 (1) of MMDR Act, 1957. d) Even though the application for grant of mining lease was made on 21/7/2005 for manganese ore, the Applicant on 18/9/2006 had requested to include iron and manganese ore for grant of mining lease since the presence of iron and manganese ore was established during prospecting. The prospecting report which is submitted on 6/2/2007 indicates the presence of iron and manganese ore. The Applicant even though had established the presence of iron ore during prospecting, had not reported to the Government within sixty days from the date of such discovery, thereby violated rule 14(1) of MCR, 1960. The Applicant also produced a revised sketch for an extent of 77 acres (31.16 hectare) instead of the earlier extent of 95.25 acres (40 hectare). e) For any mineral specified in the First Schedule to MMDR Act, reconnaissance permit, prospecting license or mining lease can be granted after getting aoproval of the Central. Government which has not been done during addition ot iron ore in case of the prospecting license granted to the Applicant. 2) Director, Department of Mines & Geology in his letter dated 30/1/2013, read at (1-c) above, had stated that he was withdrawing the recommendation made to the State Government vide his letter dated 18/612008, read at (1-b) above, on the mining lease in application No. 911 AML 2005. 3) Based on the report of the Director, Department of Mines & Geology, as mentioned above, notice was issued to the Applicant uls 26(1) of MMDR Act on 7/5/2013. The hearing was conducted on 15/5/2013, 30/5/2013, 22/6/2013 and 15/7/2013. The Applicant in her written statement on 25/5/2013 has mentioned the following facts.