Government of Ministry of Mines …

Minutes of the Meeting on Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)(MMDR) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 held on 19th January, 2015 in Vijyan Bhawan, New Delhi. … The meeting on Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)(MMDR) Amendment Ordinance, 2015 held on 19th January, 2015 in Vijyan Bhawan, New Delhi. The list of participants is given at Annexure I.

2. Shri Arun Kumar, Union Joint Secretary, welcomed all the participants to the meeting and invited Shri Vishnu Deo Sai, Hon’ble Minister of State for Mines and Steel to address the meeting. 3. Shri Vishnu Deo Sai, Hon’ble Union Minister of State for Mines and Steel in his address welcomed the State Government Ministers and officials to the meeting organized for interaction with them on the provisions of the Amendment promulgated through the MMDR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015. He said that the discussion in the meeting will be extremely helpful in operationalization of the Amendment and would be utilised for removing regulatory impediments and rejuvenating the mineral sector. 4. The Hon’ble Union Minister of Mines and Steel Shri heartily welcomed the Ministers of State Governments and officials. He stated “The need for amendment in MMDR was obvious from last many years. However, though amendment bill 2011 was introduced in it lapsed due to dissolution of the Lok Sabha. When the new government came in, the mining sector was marked by stagnation. After discussions with the various State Governments and stakeholders, the Government of India has taken an essential and much awaited revolutionary step by bringing out the amendment ordinance 2015. This Ordinance is a revolutionary step for the revival of mining sector in the country, hitherto stagnated due to various reasons. Auction will bring in greater transparency and higher revenue for the states, simplification and transferability will attract private investment, classification of minerals will lead to their scientific exploration and delays will be reduced by according more power to the states.” He further stated that from the last couple of years, many questions had been raised by the Supreme Court as well as Shah Commission. By introduction of ‘Auction’ for the grant of mineral concessions, the need for greater transparency would be addressed. The mining sectors of China and Africa have progressed because of proper advance planning and encouragement of exploration activities. Hon’ble Minister of Mines & Steel highlighted the following key features of the Ordinance: i. Removal of discretion; auction to be sole method of allotment: The amendment seeks to bring in utmost transparency by introducing auction mechanism for the grant of mineral concessions {Section 10 B &11}. The tenure of the mineral concession have been increased from the existing 30 years to 50 years {Section 8 A (1), (2), (3) and (4)}. ii. Impetus to the mining sector: The mining industry has been aggrieved due to the second and subsequent renewals remaining pending. In fact, this has led to closure of a large number of mines. The Ordinance also addresses this issue. Sub-Section 5 and 6 of Section 8(A) provide that the Mining Leases would be deemed to be extended from the date of their last renewal to 31st March, 2030 (for captive miners) and till 31st March, 2020 (for the merchant miners) or till the completion of the renewal already granted, if any, whichever is later. iii. Safeguarding interest of affected persons: There is provision to establish District Mineral Foundation (DMF) in the districts affected by mining related activities {Section 9 (B)}. iv. Encouraging exploration and investment: Further, the Ordinance proposes to setup a National Mineral Exploration Trust created out of contribution from the mining lease holders, to have a dedicated fund for encouraging exploration in the country {Section 9 (C)}. v. Simplification of procedures and removal of delay: The amendment removes the need for “previous approval” from the Central Government for important minerals like iron ore, bauxite, manganese, etc., thereby making the process quicker and simpler. Similarly, under Section 5(2)(b), the State Governments to devise a system for filing of a mining plan obviating need for approval by the Central Government. The Ordinance also provides that the tenure of any Mining Lease would now be 50 years in place of 30 years in the existing Act. vi. Stronger provisions for checking illegal mining: In order to address the escalating problem of illegal mining, the penal provisions have been made further stringent- Higher penalties up to 5 lakh rupees and imprisonment up to 5 years. 6. Thereafter, Union Secretary (Mines) added that the procedural simplification in regard to the adoption of the self-certification of the Mining Plan was a path-breaking step which has been envisioned in the Amendment. 7. Union Joint Secretary, Shri Naresh Kumar, emphasised that the immediate concern is on 2 major issues, identification of blocks for auction and framing of subordinate legislation. He gave a presentation on the action plan charted for the implementation of MMDR Amendment Ordinance 2015, which may be seen at Annexure-II. 8. Union Secretary (Mines) underlined the importance of implementation of the Ordinance which is essentially to be done by the State Governments. He then invited the Ministers of State Governments to present their views on Amendment Ordinance 2015 and also provide their valuable suggestions thereon. In the following sequence, the State’s Minister gave their views and suggestions: I. Jharkhand: Hon’ble Minister, Shri C.P Singh expressed his gratitude to the Hon’ble Minister of Mines and Steel and Union Secretary (Mines) for bringing in this ordinance. He stated that Jharkhand is rich in minerals such as Iron ore, Bauxite, etc. but still the economic condition of the people of Jharkhand is poor, in comparison to other States. He requested the Central Government to provide special help to the Jharkhand to improve the condition of people associated with mining along with the growth of the mineral sector. He praised the establishment of DMF by the amendment. He highlighted that Jharkhand is estimated to have a potential of 800 sq.km area for Iron Ore mining, but only 300 sq. kms have explored and only 100 sq. kms is available under the mining leases. He requested the Central Government to give due emphasis for exploration in the State. He requested that the provision of deemed extension should be done after taking due legal advice by the Central Government. As illegal Mining is also a big challenge for not only this State but also for the whole country, a strict rule should be framed for curbing this problem. The Union Secretary (M) told that in every quarter, Central Coordination-cum- Empowered Committee (CCEC) meetings are regularly held, which are also utilised as a platform to share good practices amongst States and Jharkhand may also get benefitted from adopting best practices from other states like Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, etc. II. Arunachal Pradesh: Hon’ble Minister Shri Kamlung Mosang endorsed the views given by Minister from Jharkhand and said that Arunachal has huge mineral deposits of Coal, Natural Gas, and have approved many PLs in the last few years. They have also formed State Mining Development Corporation (SMDC) in 2007, however, its operation have been suspended from 2011. He stated that the amendment is aligned for growth of mining sector along with the growth of employment as well as the improvement of economic condition of the area. III. Goa: Hon’ble Minister Shri Mahadev M. Naik presented the comments and suggestions of the State Government of Goa, which are as under:  In clause 4, in second proviso for words shall, may word may be used. Fourth proviso may be removed as the lapsing and revival may be left to the owner of the lease that is State Government which decision may be taken on facts and circumstances of each case.  In clause 8 following suggestions are made taking into account special conditions prevailing in Goa in mining sector which are unique to the State:  Period of fifty 50 may be substituted by 60 years.  Sub Section 3A may be introduced as follows, “notwithstanding anything contained in the Goa Daman and Diu mining concessions (abolition and declaration as mining lease) Act, 1987, for the limited purpose of this Section the period of grant of mining concessions deemed to be leases under that Act shall be with effect from 23.05.1987.  Explanation may be introduced to sub-Section 3 as follows, “all renewal applications pending decision of the State Government shall be decided as per the law in force as on the date of filing of such renewal application.  In sub-Section 6 of Section -8A an explanation may be added as follows, the provisions of this sub section shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to the renewal orders passed after the date of Ordinance either under sub-Section 2 or 3 of Section 8 of MMDR Act 1957.  In the State the Goa a Mineral Ore Permanent Fund Scheme 2014 is already devised as per direction of the apex Court concerning iron and manganese ore in which provision of charging 10 percent of sale value of mineral is already made. Since bauxite mines produce limited ore and considering the cost involved such ore is not subjected to payments. As such the provisions of 9-B and 9-C be either dropped or may not be applied to notified minerals specified in fourth schedule.  In clause 10, after Section 10-A following explanation may be added, “for the purpose of this Section applications shall not include applications for renewal filed before the state Government before Ordinance pending decision of the State Government.  In clause 13 after sub-Section 6 to Section 12-A, following explanation shall be added, “all applications received prior to the date of ordinance shall be disposed of by the State Government within 3 months from the date of Ordinance under rule 37 of MCR 1960. Any request from the legal heirs of deceased lease holder to transfer the rights in the name of the heirs of deceased lessee in their individual capacity or a partnership or a company formed by them shall not be treated as transfer.”  In clause 17 in Sub-Section 2-A of Section 17-A, word shall be substituted by may.  Clause 18 may be misused as it gives power to Central Government to even interfere in policy matters of the State Government which is the owner of the minerals. As such it needs to be deleted or at least under must be restricted to minerals in Part A and Part B of the First Schedule only.  Clause 20 in Section 30 “may of its own motion or” may be deleted as it would be seen as direct transgression or interference in the States matters even without agitation by the aggrieved party. IV. Bihar: Hon’ble Minister of Mines of Bihar Shri Ramlakhan Ram Raman stated that after the bifurcation of Bihar, there is only lime stone, sand and Mica reserves in the state. He appreciated the effort of Central Government for revamping of mining Sector. He informed that 40 sq. kms area lime stone is available, but the State is facing problems in regard to the Forest Clearance and if it is cleared, at least two Cement factories can be operationalised. He also spoke about the problems being faced because of the Deepak Kumar judgment in regard to the leases of less than 5 hectares. V. Andhra Pradesh: Hon’ble Minister of Mines of Andhra Pradesh, Smt Peethala Sujatha welcomed the decision of the Central Government to introduce auction in grant of mineral concessions and that it will bring in greater transparency in the system, but did not support the minerals included in ‘Fourth Schedule’ as notified minerals. She insisted that only metallic minerals to be notified minerals and Limestone to be deleted from notified minerals. Mineral Concession Rule (MCR) 1960 should also be amended. Union Secretary (Mines) explained that the basis for notified minerals is that their deposits are generally surficial and also assured that the simplification of MCR & MCDR will be done to the extent possible along with their revision for incorporating the amendments. VI. : Hon’ble Minister of Mines of Madhya Pradesh, Shri Rajendra Shukla also welcomed the introduction of auction and stated that the steps taken will reduce delays. He also praised the deemed extension of 50 years to the existing mining leases and establishment of District Mineral Foundation (DMF) for the interest and benefit of persons, and areas affected by mining related mining. He suggested that transfer of Mining Leases should be allowed for captive use along with the acquisition of the primary industry. VII. Karnataka: Hon’ble Minister of Karnataka, Shri T.B Jayachandra thanked to Hon’ble Minister of Mines for inviting him and welcomed the steps taken by the Central Government. He informed that Karnataka is facing a lot of problems in mining sector in respect of illegal mining. He apprised that the Supreme Court vide its judgment has also restricted the production of Iron Ore upto 30 Million Tonnes per annum in the State, even though there is both availability and requirement of more iron ore in the State. He further informed that the most of the iron ore resources in private land and in patta land and thus would have issue with regard to grant of mineral concessions through by auctioning. He also stated that MECL, a Central Government PSU, has been entrusted with prospecting work by the State Government but the exploration work needs to be improved and expedited. He emphasised the need of developing agencies for conducting exploration in such a way that the estimates may be helpful in exploration. He urged that the power of revision by the Central Government is like an encroachment upon the State powers, thus may be done away with. Moreover, he stressed the need for making interim arrangements for grant of mining concessions till the auction of the mineral concessions, else the illegal mining will proliferate due to existing demand and reserve availability. VIII. Odisha: Hon’ble Minister of Odisha, Sh Prafulla Kumar Mallik thanked to Hon’ble Minister of Mines for organizing this meeting and welcomed the decision of the Central Government for auctioning of the Major minerals. He spoke about the need of honouring of MoUs signed by the State Government for providing mineral for its captive use plants and illustrated the case of M/s POSCO India Pvt. Ltd, where the commitment given by at the international level and should be fulfilled without fail. He further stated that auction should be done without delay by quickly putting the framework in place after taking suggestion from the State Governments in this regard. IX. Rajasthan: Hon’ble Minister of Rajasthan, Shri Rajkumar Rinwa said the steps of the Central Government for auctioning of the mineral for the sake of bringing greater transparency are commendable but the interest of the small industry should also be kept in mind. He underlined the problems in complete exploration within prescribed timeline because lack of infrastructure and technology. He further suggested that there is a need to rethink the decision taken by the Central Government for auctioning of the Major minerals where the investment has already been made. X. Uttar Pradesh: Hon’ble Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Shri Gayatri Prasad Prajapati thanked to Hon’ble Minister of Mines for organizing this meeting. He stressed the need for giving due consideration to the interest of small lease holders of minor minerals and also the interest of farmers. He further stated that Uttar Pradesh is rich in minor minerals which are low in value, thus the raise in fine and imprisonment would lead to greater harassment of the small and low value miners by the law enforcement agencies. He also stressed the need for grant of EC/FC in a time-bound manner. XI. Uttarakhand: Hon’ble Chairman, Uttarakhand Khanij Vikas Nigam. (Rank of Minister of State), Shri KP Singh stated that Section 10(B) & 11 will create problems in grant of leases in the State of Uttarakhand, owing to lack of exploration and discrepancies in private and revenue land and requested to consider direct allotment other than auction. He urged that the minimum size of the mining lease needs to be relaxed further and Section 9(B) should be simplified and a separate fund should be allotted for Himalayan States with regard to upliftment of mining in Uttarakhand. 9. Union Minister of Mines while proposing a vote of thanks said that the amendment seeks to maximize the power to the State Government and that the Central Government is there to support the State Government in all possible ways. He stated that Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has given the vision of ‘Make in India’, in which the mining sector has extremely important role to play and the MMDR Ordinance Act has the potential to act as a tool for curing the malaise affecting the performance of the mining sector and bringing the mineral sector back on a path of steady growth. The vision of ‘Make in India’ given by Prime Minister with the motto of ‘Zero Effect’ on the environment and society, along with ‘Zero Defect’ manufacturing sector, needs the support of a buoyant raw material supply by the mineral sector. 10. The 2nd half of the meeting was held with the officials of the State Governments and Ministry of Mines. Union Additional Secretary (Mines) urged the State Government officials to give their comments on the item wise discussion on the Amendments brought out in the Ordinance. 11. Haryana asked the Central Government to also provide definition of Major Minerals in Section 2. 12. J&K sought that the procedures to be formulated under Section 10B & 11 may be kept simple for their smooth implementation. 13. Odisha urged inclusion of Chromite in the Schedule IV list of notified minerals and asked if State government may notify minerals as notified minerals on their own for the purpose of direct ML auction. AS(Mines) clarified the matter that notified minerals are essentially surficial minerals and the central government would be open to suggestions from the state governments for inclusions of more minerals in it. 14. Rajasthan expressed the need to keep the lease stoppage period - due to want of clearances etc., to be excluded for the purpose of calculation of the total lease period. Mica and China Clay to be declared as minor minerals. They also urged that the pending applications should not lapse as mandated by the Section 10A. A preferential right to the minor mineral lessee for the grant of mineral concession for a major mineral should also be considered. The diversion of forest land should be co-terminus with the lease period. There shall be no distinction made for captive and non-captive user in extension of the existing MLs. The provision of Land Acquisition in the MMDR Act is required on the lines of Railway Act & Defence Act, which is essential for the purpose of auctioning of mineral concession with respect to a particular tract of land. A model template for auction should be prepared by the Central Government for the purpose of guidance of the states and uniformity across the states. Formal proposal in regard to all suggestions will sent to the Central Government. 15. Kerala requested for inclusion of Beach Sand minerals in the list of minor minerals. 16. Madhya Pradesh sought the clarification in regard to the status of applications made under Section 4A(4) after the lapse of 3 months period for the order of the state government. AS (Mines) clarified that the applications would lapse. It was further requested to increase the period to 6 months. Odisha urged that the 3 months’ time may be granted from the promulgation of the ordinance instead of the date of application for giving reasonable time for the State Governments to act in the matters which have been pending since long. 17. Madhya Pradesh supported the discontinuance of the prior approval of Central Government in respect of mineral concessions, and requested the same to be done in case of Coal also. 18. Chhattisgarh was clarified in the matter of maximum area limit for PL cum ML that the maximum area stipulations for respective PL and ML will apply on the stages of PL cum ML. 19. Madhya Pradesh sought the increase in maximum area limits in the purview of the substituted proviso, for which the proposal to be sent to the Central Government. 20. Karnataka suggesting rewording of the Section 8A (5) & (6) by deleting ‘with effect from’ as to remove the redundancy from the Section, for which AS (Mines) explained that the same has been formulated in consultation with the Legislative Department. 21. On the query of Himachal, JS/MoEFCC clarified that the validity of the Forest clearance would be up to the particular date of the lease period and the same would need to be applied for the purpose of extension, while the Environment Clearance would be automatically co-terminus with the lease period and would stand automatically renewed for the extended period. 22. Odisha insisted that the lease period provision of 50 years should be reverted back for 30 years with renewal of 20 years for the purpose of ensuring the renewal only being done in cases where the lease conditions are being complied with properly and not automatically as would happen in the case of lease period of 50 years as per the Ordinance. AS (M) emphasised that the cases of violation of lease can be taken up under the provisions of the lease deed and it is not required to wait for the renewal to address this. 23. Odisha stated that the deemed extension benefit to the Lessee should only be applicable in case of approval by the state government and subsequent notification and that a representation would be sent in this regard. 24. Karnataka sought clarification with the level of captive consumption to be considered as captive consumption. AS (M) clarified that captive implies that all mineral production should be utilised for captive purpose only. 25. Gujarat also sought to recommend for declaration of certain minerals as minor minerals. 26. Goa illustrated its specific problems in regard to the Abolition Act applicability in the context of the period of the leases. Union Secretary (Mines) clarified the matter in regard to the stipulation in the act. 27. J&K raised the issue about the period of leases in regard to the Government Companies which was clarified by Union Secretary (Mines) that they would be prescribed through the rules being framed for the same. 28. Rajasthan requested that the case of captive mines should be treated favourably while drafting of the rules. 29. J&K insisted that the joint venture stipulation of 74% of the paid up share capital of the PSU needs to be reduced to 50 % to make it attractive to the private investor. The period of lease should be increased to 60 years 30. Chhattisgarh wanted that the limit of DMF contribution be increased from 1/3rd of the royalty payable to 100%, as the earlier MMDR Bill also stipulated the same. JS (AK) explained the rationale for the 1/3rd celling illustrating the example of iron ore that the earlier royalty was at the level of 10% when the additional 10% of the royalty could be collected to fund the DMF, but with the increase in royalty rate to 15%, the 1/3rd would be 5% more, which would add up to 20%. Thus it has been kept at 1/3rd now. 31. Karnataka sought the relaxation in the norms of UNFC required to establish the mineralisation for the PL which have already been executed before. AS(M) clarified that mineralisation existence is essential for the purpose of preparation of mining plan for safe and scientific mining and for the conservation of minerals, thus may not be relaxed. 32. Karnataka raised the issue of surface rights while allocation of mineral concessions through auction and sought clarification in regard to the non-applicability Section 10B & 11 to the land in respect of which the minerals do not vest in the government. It was explained by AS (M) that the same differentiation was provided in the MMDR Act earlier and the MCR as well. Gujarat also raised the issue in regard to problem in auction of private land and their mineral rights. AS (M) stated that since Land was a state subject, no further clarification lies within the purview of the Central Government in the matter, and decision in this regard may be taken by the states as per their extant rules. 33. Uttarakhand put forth its demands on behalf of the Himalayan states that the exploration has been given second priority in the Himalayan States, thus more funds are required to be allocated for exploration. 34. Himachal sought for revision of the amendment in terms of the provision for allocation of mineral resources through non-auction methodologies also due to infeasibility of auction for small deposits and other cases. 35. Odisha highlighted the problem of Land Acquisition especially with respect to the scheduled areas and requested for providing a framework by the MoM for resolution of the issues which may be in line with the Samatha Judgment or such other related judgements and legislations. Union AS (M) asked the states to give their specific recommendations in this regard. 36. Karnataka recommended for awarding of PL based on non-financial criteria and its saleability / reimbursement before auction of the ML. AS (M) intimated that the auction has been chosen to be the best method after due deliberations and thus all mineral concessions have to be distributed through auction only. 37. Kerala suggested that the minimum area should be reduced to 1 hectare for harnessing small deposits. 38. Union AS(M) requested all the state governments to send their formal representations on the issues raised in the meeting on the ordinance for the finalisation of the bill and send their proposals of recommendation of minerals for inclusion in the list of minor minerals. 39. Union Secretary (Mines) thanked all State Government officials and urged all of them to compile the list of non-working mines for the want of Environmental, Forest or other clearances. The list should be segregated mineral wise and clearance wise with their present status and sent to Ministry of Mines, GOI for taking up the matter with MoEFCC and other concerned authorities. 40. Union Secretary (Mines) informed that Senior Officers of Ministry of Mines are being nominated to each State, for further explaining the provisions of the Amendment and discussing suggestions on it. The States may organise workshops in consultation with their respective nominated officers. The workshop should have sessions with the concerned officials of the State Governments and with the stakeholders. Annexure I

List of participants of the meeting on implementation of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Ordinance, 2015

Venue: Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi Time/Date: 10.30 A.M. 19th January, 2015

Central Government Ministers & Officials

S.N. Name Designation Ministry 1. Shri Narendra Singh Tomar Hon’ble Minister of Mines and Mines & Steel Steel 2. Shri Vishnu Deo Sai Hon’ble Minister of State for Mines & Steel Mines and Steel 3. Dr Anup K. Pujari Secretary Mines 4. Shri R. Sridharan Additional Secretary Mines 5. Shri Arun Kumar Joint Secretary Mines 6. Smt Sujata Prasad Joint Secretary & Financial Mines Advisor 7. Shri Naresh Kumar Joint Secretary Mines 8. Dr Niranjan Kumar Singh Joint Secretary Mines 9. Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Joint Secretary MOEFCC 10. Shri Sudhakar Shukla Economic Adviser Mines 11. Shri Nikunj Kumar PS to Minister of Mines and Mines & Steel Srivastava Steel 12. Shri Alok Jha PS to Minister of State for Mines Mines & Steel and Steel 13. Shri Rokhum Lalremruata Director Mines 14. Shri Chandramani Sharma Director Mines 15. Shri Kapil Rastogi Director Mines 16. Shri Shersha Director Mines 17. Shri Prithul Kumar Director Mines 18. Smt Farida M.Naik Director Mines 19. Shri B.K. Singh Director (FC) MoEFCC 20. Shri Sarat Kumar Mishra Deputy Secretary Mines 21. Dr Joyesh Bagchi Deputy Secretary (Tech.) Mines 22. Shri Ajay Kumar Kadian Under Secretary Mines 23. Shri Adhir Kumar Mallik Under Secretary Mines 24. Dr Sonu Singh Scientist ‘C’ MoEFCC

State Government Ministers & Officials

S.N. Name of Officer Attending Designation State 1. Smt Peethala Sujatha Hon’ble Minister Andhra Pradesh 2. Shri Kamlung Mosang Hon’ble Minister Arunachal Pradesh 3. Shri Ram Lakhan Ram Hon’ble Minister Bihar Raman 4. Shri Mahadev N. Naik Hon’ble Minister Goa 5. Shri C.P Singh Hon’ble Minister Jharkhand 6. Shri T. B Jayachandra Hon’ble Minister Karnataka 7. Shri Rajendra Shukla Hon’ble Minister Madhya Pradesh 8. Shri Prafulla Kumar Mallik Hon’ble Minister Odisha 9. Shri Raj Kumar Rinwa Hon’ble Minister Rajasthan 10. Shri Gayatri Prasad Hon’ble Minister Uttar Pradesh Prajapati 11. Shri K.P Singh Hon’ble Chairman, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Khanij Vikas Nigam. (Rank of Minister of State) 12. Shri B RV Susheel Kumar Director, Department of Mines & Andhra Pradesh Geology 13. Shri T. Talar Director (Geology and Mining) Andhra Pradesh 14. Shri M. Girja Shankar MD APMDC Andhra Pradesh 15. Shri Subodh Kumar Singh Secretary Mines Chhattisgarh 16. Shri B.S. Bhalla Secretary (E&F) Chandigarh 17. Shri Vikram Singh Deputy Commissioner Daman & Diu 18. Shri Ashwani Kumar Sec (Rev.) Director Delhi 19. Shri T.Natarajan Commissioner Geology & Mining Gujarat 20. Shri Pawan Kumar Sain Secretary Govt. of Goa Goa 21. Shri Prasanna Acharya Director of Mining & Geology Goa 22. Shri Roshan Lal Additional Chief Secretary Mines Haryana & Geology 23. Shri Rajnesh Sharma Geologist Himachal Pradesh 24. Shri Anil Kumar Rana Geologist Himachal Pradesh 25. Shri K.A Ganai Financial Jammu & Kashmir Commissioner(Industries Commerce) 26. Shri F.A. Khan Director Mines & Geology Jammu & Kashmir 27. Shri Arun Secretary Jharkhand 28. Dr Jai Prakash Singh Director Mines& Geology Jharkhand 29. Shri Tushar Giri Nath Secretary (Mines) G.O Karnataka 30. Shri D.P. Sree Kumar Director Mines + Geology Kerala 31. Shri Sheoshekhar Shukla Secretary MRD, GO MP Madhya Pradesh 32. Shri V.K Austin Director Madhya Pradesh 33. Shri Anoop Mishra DY. Director Madhya Pradesh 34. Shri R.S. Kalamkar Joint Director Maharashtra 35. Shri M.S.Lyngdoh Meghalaya 36. Shri Dr. Ranbir Singh Resident Commissioner Mizoram

37. Shri Rajiv Bansal Principal Resident Commissioner Nagaland

38. Shri Raj Kumar Sharma Principal Secretary Steel & Mines Odisha

39. ShriDeepak Mohanty Director of Mines Odisha

40. Shri B.Purushartha Director Mining Punjab

41. Shri B.S. Sodha OSD Technical Rajasthan

42. Shri Atul Anand Commissioner Mines & Geology Tamil Nadu

43. Shri K. Pradeep Chandra Spl. Chief Secretary Telangana

44. Shri Sridhar Babu Director Mines Uttarakhand

45. Shri S.L Patrick Joint Director Mining Uttarakhand

46. Shri Santosh Kr Rai Sp. Sec Mines UP Uttar Pradesh 47. Dr Bhaskar Upadhyay Director Uttar Pradesh

Annexure II

Identification of blocks for Auction:

 Block fit for direct ML auction to be identified in the first phase.  Work already done by GSI, MECL and State Mines and Geology Departments to be reviewed.  Gap analysis for gradation of available reports.  States to review data and shortlist candidate blocs for auction.  Team of GSI officers has already contacted State Governments.  Summary of available data

 12 iron ore block  16 bauxite blocks  3 manganese blocks  168 limestone blocks  Summary of Available Data  Many are at UNFC 332 (EFG) stage  Upgradation of information on resources likely to be needed in all cases.  Transaction Adviser(TA)  GOI proposes to appoint Transaction Adviser to advise on the following:  Identification and Segregation of mineral resources  Techno-economic evaluation of geological reports