SHILLONG, May 17: The High Court of Meghalaya has observed that the complicity of the state government with the mining and transport mafia “becomes rather obvious” in view of the rampant illegal coal mining, the mushrooming of illegal coke plants and the continuing transportation of coal across the state, including in trucks without registration plates.
The court also took note of the state government “utterly disobeying orders” of the National Green Tribunal and the Supreme Court while hearing a PIL by Champer M. Sangma on Wednesday.
Pursuant to a previous order, the Assam government filed a letter in which a superintendent of police forwarded a report pertaining to the possibility and feasibility of a respondent (Jaimaa Coal Private Limited) having lifted huge quantities of coal during 2021 and thereabouts from the open market in Beltola or its surrounding areas.
The report concluded it is unlikely that the said respondent would have obtained the huge quantity of coal it sought to export from the open market in or around Beltola. In the light of such field report and conclusion, both the state and the respondent have been asked to respond thereto when the matter appears next.
Several papers were brought on behalf of the Customs authorities pursuant to the previous direction. Such papers include a specimen e-way bill. The sample bill is dated December 16, 2021, and was produced by Jaimaa Coal Private Limited at the Gasuapara Land Customs Station for the purpose of exporting 12 MT of washed blend coal.
The Customs authorities pointed out that they are only required to check the e-way bill and original e-way bill in this case carried a signature and rubber-stamp of the Meghalaya government and its Directorate of Mineral Resources at two places – one at Dainadubi when the relevant truck may have entered the state and the other at Gasuapara just before reaching the Gasuapara LCS.
The Customs authorities also produced a copy of a letter dated March 9, 2022, issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), North-Eastern Region to the Chief Secretary of the state.
In paragraph 3 of the letter, it was indicated that the Customs officer at the LCS through which coal is exported checks the relevant documents to ensure that illegally mined Meghalaya coal is not cleared for export.
The letter says in case of coal originating from outside Meghalaya, the Mining and Geology Department of the government of Meghalaya issues export permits or orders and the period of validity of such permits or orders. The letter refers to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1956, the rules framed thereunder, and the widespread reporting of illegal coal mining and illegal transportation of such coal in the state.
“In short, upon the LCS authorities receiving complaints from various quarters, they put the state of Meghalaya on notice that the state should ensure proper verification before permits or orders were issued for export of coal,” the court order stated.
Another letter of May 4, 2022, issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) was brought to the court’s notice. There was a third letter seeking coordination between Customs officials and the state government, dated November 22, 2022.
A copy of a letter of November 11, 2019, was produced in which the Union Ministry of Finance and Corporate Affairs had written to the Chief Minister of Meghalaya for mandatory checking of transport challans since the Customs authorities do not have the mandate to ascertain the origin of coal at the LCS.
The court observed that despite the present and several related matters in this court pertaining to rampant illegal coal mining, the orders of the NGT and the Supreme Court in such regard from 2014 or 2016, and despite several orders of this court for stopping the illegal transportation of illegally mined coal, the state did not find it convenient to refer to any of the aforesaid letters, particularly the letter issued by the Union Minister to the Chief Minister.
“Since these documents have come to light just now, it is necessary to call upon both the state and the respondent to respond to the same,” the division bench said.
