The Karnataka High Court has directed the central government to take a fresh decision by July 3 on the request by the State government seeking approval for granting 16,109.61 hectares at South Hutti in Raichur district in favour of Hutti Gold Mines Company Ltd (HGML). The Centre had, on May 31, 2011, rejected the request of the State after which HGML had approached the high court.
The State had sought the Centre’s consent reserving land in favour of HGML, a state-owned company, which was turned down as devoid of merit and that the State government was to consider the pending request of Geo Mysore Services (India) Pvt Ltd and Deccan Gold Exploration Services Pvt Ltd for grant of a prospecting licence expeditiously. The two companies had argued before the court that they had been granted reconnaissance permit pursuant to which they have already incurred considerable expenses for locating gold deposits and therefore are entitled to preferential right as per Sec 11 of the MMDR Act. They also contended that instead of granting prospecting license, the State had suddenly decided to take HGML into consideration to reserve the area.
The two companies later approached the revision authority by communicating to the secretary, mines, of the central government, which held that the State government was not entitled under Sec 17A (2) of MMDR Act to reserve for itself the land in question and directed it to give due consideration to the two companies. Earlier, a division bench of the high court had directed the central government to reconsider the State’s plea seeking to reserve the land in favour of HGML. The Union government, by its order dated May 31, 2011, however rejected the State’s plea.
When the matter was again brought before the high court, a division bench headed by Chief Justice Vikramajit Sen held that the order rejecting the State’s plea is not in conformity with the law as the interests of the two companies waiting in the wing by virtue of their holding reconnaissance permit are irrelevant.“Since the Centre has reiterated its previous decision by rejecting the plea, it may be appropriate to issue a direction to it,” the court said.