Shillong: The Meghalaya High Court on Monday issued a stern warning to the state government regarding the ongoing issue of illegal coal mining.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Hamarsan Singh Thangkhiew and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh, heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) related to the suo motu cognizance of illegal mining activities in the state.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The court’s order came in light of the 24th and 25th interim reports submitted by the Justice (retd) BP Katakey Committee.
While acknowledging the state government’s efforts in implementing some of the recommendations, including the levy of demurrage charges and the initiation of satellite imagery to monitor mining activities, the court expressed concern over the slow pace of progress in other key areas.
Advocate General Amit Kumar, representing the Meghalaya government, explained that the delay in lifting the inventoried coal was primarily due to political factors in Bangladesh.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
He assured the court that the transportation of coal from pitheads to coal depots had been completed. However, the court emphasized the need for expedited action on the remaining recommendations, especially those related to the closure of illegal mines in the South West Khasi Hills district.
The Katakey Committee also presented its 26th interim report, highlighting the areas where the state government still needs to comply with the court’s directives.
The Advocate General was directed to submit an interim status report by December 16, allowing the court to issue further orders before the winter closure.
In a separate development, the High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Office Memorandum that prescribed a minimum area of 100 hectares for prospecting licenses for coal.
The court upheld the validity of the Office Memorandum, stating that it was in compliance with the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and the directives of the Ministry of Coal.
The court also dismissed the petitioner’s arguments related to the Meghalaya Mines and Mineral Policy 2012 and other state-specific regulations, deeming them irrelevant to the case at hand.