BHUBANESWAR: Mineral-based industries, particularly small mineral producers, steel manufacturers and industry associations, have raised serious concerns over the Centre’s move to remove statutory area limits on mineral concessions under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
The Utkal Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited (UCCIL) has cautioned that the proposed removal of area caps for reconnaissance permits (RP), prospecting licences (PL) and mining leases (ML) could lead to excessive concentration of mineral resources in the hands of a few large players, undermining competition and marginalising small and medium mining lease holders.
The industry body stressed that the existing statutory framework, particularly the 10 sq km per mineral per state cap under Section 6(1)(b), was consciously retained during the landmark 2015 amendments to the MMDR Act, despite broader reforms to promote transparency and auctions.
In a representation to the Ministry of Mines, UCCIL said, the legislative intent behind retaining area limits has been clear - preventing monopolisation of natural resources, ensuring equitable access through competitive auctions and safeguarding inter-generational equity.
“These objectives remain relevant and necessary, especially in a capital-intensive sector like mining where long-term investment decisions depend heavily on regulatory certainty,” the chamber argued.
The representation also pointed out that the Ministry of Mines itself had acknowledged similar concerns during its 2022 consultation process. The consultation paper had warned that allowing disproportionate accumulation of mineral-bearing areas could defeat the fair and transparent auction system and reduce equitable allocation of natural resources.
Industry consultations at the time had highlighted the risk that financially stronger entities could corner large tracts of mineral-rich land, adversely impacting competition and balanced sectoral growth.
“There has been no material change in market conditions since 2022 to justify a complete departure from this position. The current proposal represents a significant shift from earlier consultative outcomes, without adequate safeguards,” the UCCIL observed.
From a constitutional perspective, the industry body also flagged potential concerns under Articles 14 and 39(b) of the Constitution, which emphasise equality and equitable distribution of material resources for the common good.
While opposing the blanket removal of area limits, it stated, “Any relaxation, if deemed necessary, should be calibrated, mineral-specific and exception-based, linked to demonstrable development of mineral-based industries within the state and subject to legislative and parliamentary oversight.”