Over 60 mineral blocks await clearance in Raj

Jaipur: The mining sector in Rajasthan is facing a significant slowdown as over 60 major mineral blocks remain stuck in various stages of clearance. According to official data, key approvals related to environmental clearance (EC), forest diversion, Charagah no objection certificates (NoC), and mining plans are pending across different departments, delaying the commencement of operations.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
An official said, "The highest number of pendencies lies in environmental clearance, where 29 blocks are awaiting approval. Of these, 12 files are pending with the ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEF), 11 with the state environment impact assessment authority (SELAA), and 6 at the applicant level."
The Charagah NoC, mandatory for land use clearance involving grazing land, remains pending for 15 blocks.
Industry experts said the delay in clearances is not only affecting state revenue but also impacting employment generation and raw material supply to key sectors such as cement, construction, and manufacturing. This includes 1 file at the revenue department, 2 with the district collector, and 12 pending at the applicant level, suggesting delays in submission or processing of required documentation.
Additionally, 15 mining plans—critical for operational approval—are yet to be cleared.
Out of these, 8 are awaiting scrutiny by the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), while 7 are stuck at the applicant level. The forest diversion clearance, although limited to one block, remains unresolved at the forest department level, adding to the bottleneck.
Industry experts said the delay in clearances is not only affecting state revenue but also impacting employment generation and raw material supply to key sectors such as cement, construction, and manufacturing.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
"Timely clearance is crucial for maintaining investor confidence and ensuring sustainable growth in the mining sector. These pendencies will be addressed through coordinated efforts between departments," said a senior official.
With the state targeting increased mineral production under its economic roadmap, resolving these bottlenecks could play a critical role in unlocking the potential of Rajasthan's vast mineral wealth. "A team will be set up to coordinate and remove the bottlenecks as the dept eyes at least 1000 crore revenue per month," the official said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Indian Express

a day ago

• Indian Express

Bombay HC dismisses 2 PILs against Lloyds Metals

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed two public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the grant of permission to the capacity expansion of the Surjagarh iron ore mines of Lloyds Metals and Energy Ltd (LMEL) in Gadchiroli. While the PILs were quashed on May 9, the order copy was uploaded on June 19. The high court found both the PILs to be without merit. The PILs filed by Samarjeet Chatterjee, a mining contractor from Raipur, Chhattisgarh, alleged that the process of environmental clearance (EC) granted by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for expansion of mining capacity from 3 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) to 10 MTPA and further Terms of Reference (ToR) towards expansion from 10 MTPA to 26 MTPA were 'illegal'. The division bench comprising Justices Nitin Sambre and Abhay Mantri observed that 'the complete procedure based on the ToR is followed,' and found that both the PILs were devoid of merit. The petitioner also alleged that the public hearing was conducted at a place far away from the project site. The court observed, 'The fact remains that in compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment notification dated May 29, 2006, as amended on December 01, 2009, a public hearing was conducted at the [Gadchiroli] District Headquarters, which is perhaps properly secured in view of the Naxal menace.' The counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi, and since he never attended the public hearing conducted by the collector at the district headquarters, he lost the opportunity to question the legality of the orders impugned in these PILs. Further, the counsel submitted that the initial EC was granted in 2005-06 after the hearing conducted by the collector at the very same place, and the said hearing was never questioned by the petitioner for the last 20 years. The counsel added that the EC for 10 MTPA was issued by the MoEF&CC under strict compliance with and adherence to the provisions of the EIA Notification dated May 29, 2006 and the SOP issued by the ministry. Though the public hearing was conducted at Gadchiroli district headquarters on the recommendation of the Police Department as the project site fell within the Naxal-affected area, all the locals were given due opportunity to present their say on the mining project, the court observed. The high court further stated that the courts should be sensitive and careful to the fact that the petitioner should not be allowed to indulge in making wild and reckless allegations. Since the petitioner stated that his annual income was Rs 4-5 lakh, the court observed, 'We fail to understand as to what is the source of expenses incurred by the petitioner as there is a serious doubt about his bona fides also'. With due observations, the high court dismissed both the PILs without costs.

Time of India

a day ago

• Time of India

Sanctions on hold for bldgs taller than G+8 within 20 km of airport: Hakim

1 2 3 Kolkata: Buildings taller than G+8 will not be sanctioned by KMC and all municipalities that sanction building plans within a 20 km radius of the airport till the Airports Authority of India (AAI) clears the air about a height restriction for smooth flight operations, KMC mayor and urban development minister Firhad Hakim said on Friday. Hakim has asked the KMC buildings department and heads of all other municipalities to keep on hold sanctions of all buildings that have more than nine floors. "We need to keep the height of the buildings near the airport under check for the time being, especially within the 20km radius of the facility. We are waiting for a guideline from AAI; until then, the height restrictions will be in place," said Hakim. Reacting to the development, Siddharth Pansari, Credai Kolkata president and the Primarc Group director, said: "Firstly, safety and security can never be compromised. This appears to be an interim measure based on some national intervention. I am sure when detailed guidelines are made, there will be clarity on this subject. This fundamentally would be on a flight path and cannot be a general radius for metropolitan cities. " Sushil Mohta, Credai West Bengal president and Merlin Group chairman, said: "AAI has a very scientific online system for giving height clearance. They have a site for online approval of building height. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Memperdagangkan CFD Emas dengan salah satu spread terendah? IC Markets Mendaftar Undo The problem is with illegal structures near the airport." In the wake of the Ahmedabad tragedy, KMC has alerted the executive engineers in the boroughs to strictly adhere to the AAI guidelines. As per the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations) Rules, 2015, no construction or plantation activity is permitted within a 20km radius of an airport's Aerodrome Reference Point without prior clearance. Builders, developers, and even individual property owners must secure a mandatory NOC before undertaking any such activity. The regulation lays out detailed height limits depending on the area's proximity to the airport and its operational zones—namely, approach, take-off, transitional zones, and others demarcated in Colour Coded Zoning Maps (CCZM), officials said. Construction plans within these marked zones must either conform to the specifications in the CCZM or obtain a valid NOC. The maps offer a ready reckoner for permissible heights unless the site lies in a red-flagged zone, where NOCs are compulsory, a senior official said. According to a KMC buildings department official, maximum vigilance would be maintained in the Cossipore-Dum Dum belt, which is closer to the airport, and the areas near Behala Flying Club. According to a modified building rule, the KMC executive engineers need to pass even a G+1 building in the Cossipore-Dum Dum belt due to its proximity to the airport. As far as sanctioning plans in other areas are concerned, KMC has asked the executive engineers to go by CCZM and, in case of any doubts, refer the matter to the seniors. "In most cases, we need to keep a check on the G+6, G+7, and G+8 buildings that are located within the specified 20km radius. Any buildings crossing this limit will require special sanction from our side," said a civic official.

The Hindu

3 days ago

• The Hindu

BCI hits back at Society of Indian Law Firms over foreign law firm rules

The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Thursday (June 19, 2025) pushed back against criticism from the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), the apex body of law firms in India, over its recent move to let foreign lawyers and law firms work in India in a limited capacity. Responding to SILF's public statements, the BCI — the regulatory authority for the legal profession — said the group does not speak for most Indian law firms, especially smaller and newer ones. 'It (SILF) functions primarily as a closed group dominated by a few large, well-established firms. Its stance and actions do not reflect the concerns or aspirations of more than 90% of India's smaller or emerging law firms,' BCI said. Also read: India warms to foreign law firms, but legal concerns simmer In May 2025, the BCI introduced a notification permitting foreign lawyers to function in non-litigious areas only. BCI said the decision was 'based on extensive consultations and overwhelmingly positive feedback from Indian law firms across the country'. 'Contrary to the misleading claims being circulated, these rules do not allow foreign lawyers to practice Indian law, litigate in Indian courts, or appear before any Indian tribunal or statutory authority,' it said. The rules restrict foreign law firms and lawyers strictly to advisory roles in non-litigious matters involving foreign law, international law, or international commercial arbitration, all subject to regulatory oversight and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Government of India. Committee set up BCI said it has already constituted a high-level committee chaired by Cyril Shroff and comprising senior partners from leading law firms, who have been tasked with reviewing the rules and incorporating feedback from stakeholders, including SILF. The council has also resolved to individually engage with law firms nationwide and are working to convene a national-level conference of Indian law firms in Mumbai this September. 'Old win in new bottle' While speaking to The Hindu last month, SILF chairman Lalit Bhasin while welcoming the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers in India raised a few legal concerns. Mr. Bhasin said the BCI's move might go against a 2018 Supreme Court ruling. While the earlier 2023 BCI notification was put on hold, he said that the latest notification feels like 'old wine in a new bottle'. He also suggested that Parliament should step in and amend the law to avoid confusion. On the other hand, the BCI targeted SILF saying it has 'historically acted to preserve its members commercial interests at the expense of young, deserving Indian lawyers and new legal practices striving to grow in an increasingly competitive and global legal arena'. BCI alleged that many of the firms comprising SILF have maintained 'close, long-standing professional affiliations with major foreign law firms'. 'These affiliations have enabled a parallel legal services economy, wherein foreign legal work is funnelled through select Indian firms. This has systematically denied fair opportunities to the vast majority of Indian legal practitioners,' it said. It also stated that SILF has, for over 20 years, opposed any serious engagement with foreign firms — hurting Indian law firms that want to grow internationally.