Tuesday, January 7, 2025

History of Dankari Black stone Loot in Odisha

 

History of Illegal excavation of Blackstone quarry  in Dankari Hill under  Dharmashala Tahasil of Jajpur district, Odisha

1.    Dankari Black stone quarry was created with an area Ac 41.50 out of Ac 773.60 plot No. 600, Khata No. 221 of Village Dankari and leased out in favour of  Sribash Jena , Village-saroi, PS-Dharmashala  Dist-Jajpur  for a period of three Years  through short  term lease  from 1.11.2002 to 31.10.2005.

2.    This was renewed for a period of another 3 years  from 1.11.2005 to 31.10.2008  and also further renewed from 1.11.2008 to 31.10.2011.

3.    During  this period , the lease holder extracted huge blackstone illegally  beyond lease area and cause huge revenue loss  to  the state exchequer  which  was  covered  by media  during  that time.  Though  the local people made  complaint, no action was taken  as he enjoys political patronage  of Ruling Biju Janata Dal party.

4.    However, after expiry of lease  period, the lease holder Sribash Jena  again applied before Tahasildar , dharmashala  for  renewal of  the lease of Dankari  Blackstone quarry  for a period of another  three  years. Tahasildar, Dharmashala reject his application in pursuant to the circular No. 1470 dt. 9.9.2008 of Board of Revenue, Cuttack. He advised to Sribash Jena to participate in public auction for lease and gave him rejection letter.

5.    Being aggrieved by the order of Tahasildar dt. 15.7.2011, Sri Sribash Jena filed writ petition bearing No.  W.P.(C) 20799/2011 challenging the circular No. 1470 dt. 6.9.2008 of the Member of Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack.

6.    After hearing the matter, the hon’ble High Court passed the judgement on 28.3.2012. As per High Court order, the Tahasildar, Dharmashala recommended the said case record to the Sub-Collector, Jajpur on 9.4. 2012.The Sub-Collector, Jajpur approved the same and the source was settled through auction. It was not finalized and postponed due to another writ petition bearing No. W.P. (C) No. 9876/2012   filed by Niranjan Behera.

7.    Being aggrieved, Sribash Jena filed another Writ Petition bearing No.  W.P. (C ) No. 10886/2012 in High Court . the Hon’ble Court disposed of the case on  3.10.2012.

8.    Finally, the Dankari Blackstone Quarry  was settled in favour of  the petitioner  on long term basis  for a period of  five years  by virtue  of  order passed by Hon’ble High Court  subject to compliation  of Environment clearance.

9.    As per order  of High Court,  Sribash Jena  obtained  the  consent to established  from the State Pollution Control Board  vide letter No. 3617 dt. 26.11.12. Then the  Competent  authority entered  into an agreement with Sribash Jena  on 5.12.2012.

10. But  as per  order  of  High Court, he  neither  obtained Environment  clearance nor Consent to Operate  from the  Competent authority. After getting  agreement signed, he started   blackstone quarry  in the  leased area  illegally.  Lakhs of  tons of  Blackstone  was  extracted  causing  huge  loss  of crores  of rupees  to the State  Exchequer.

11. In 2014, Sri Sarbeswar Behura ,  local RTI Activist , after  obtaining  all the  information  under RTI exposed  operation of illegal blackstone quarry  publicly  and demanded  inquiry into it. The Media  covered  the news  about  illegal quarry  being  operated  in Dankari Hill   in the knowledge  of the  Tahsildar and  District administration.

12.Then,  the Regional Officer, State Pollution Control Board,  Kalinganagar  vide letter No.  3349 dated  26.11.2015  directed  Tahasildar Dharmashala  to  stop illegal  blackstone quarry.  The Tahasildar vide letter no. 3408 dt. 27.11.2015  direcetd  Sribash Jena  to stop illegal mining activities in Dankari. But Srbash Jena  who was enjoying  political patronage  continued  illegal mining activities.

13.In the meantime ,  the OMMC ( Amendment) Rule , 2016  came into force  on 14th December, 2016 . Sribash Jena  who was  undertaking illegal mining activity  having unholy alliance with  Revenue Officials and local MLA   played  another trick  of prepared  mining  plan of  the Dankari Blackstone quarry  and  the approved  mining plan  with requisite fees  was submitted  before  the State  Environment  Assessment Authority  by the Tahasildar , dharmashala  on 22.1.2016  for issuance  of environment  clearance.

14. However, sarbeswar Behura, RTI Activist continued   exposing huge extraction of blackstone from illegal quarry and highlighted it in the media demanding immediate action against Sribash Jena. The local people also joined with Sarbeswar Behura and demanded an inquiry into illegal quarry and amount of loss to the State   exchequer.

15.On receipt of allegation petitions  from the  local people, the  administration  was forced  to conduct an inquiry. The Collector, SP, Sub-Collector, Jajpur  and other related  officials  visited Dankari  Black stone quarry  and found that  blackstone was  unevenly extracted  and quarry was put  to operation  in an unscientific manner  by Sribash Jena. According  the Collector, Jajpur submitted  the report to the Government  vide letter  No. 129 dt. 10.5.2016.

16. The  Collector, Jajpur vide letter No.  5547  dt. 3.12.2015  directed  the Deputy Director  of Mines, Jajpur Road  to make an assessment  about the total quantum  of blackstone  extracted  from quarry  over  the years  from 2013-14 to 2015-16.

17. The Deputy Director of mines  vide letter No. 514 dt. 15.3.2016  submitted  a detailed report  along with  calculation  sheet  with cross sectional plan  in graphic sheet  and GPs  coordination  of the quarry area  in the graphic map  and thereby  calculated  that  volume of stones extracted  has been computed  to the  tune of  7, 33,81,012 Cum  has been extracted  from Dankari Blackstone quarry  from 2002-03 to 2015.

18.The  Tahasildar, dharmashala vide letter no. 1584 dt. 7.5.2016  reported  that  Sribash Jena has  lifted  14,15,596 Cum of blackstone  from the sources  from 2002 to till 27.11.2015 and deposited  an amount of Rs. 6,64,89,908.00  towards royalty  and Govt. dues.

19.Thus  there is huge gap  between realization of Royalty  and extraction of Blackstone  from the quarry which leads to misappropriation of royalty  by Sribash Jena  and huge loss  to the state  exchequer.

20. The Collector , Jajpur  vide letter No. 2262 dt. 18.5.2016  instructed  the Tahasildar , Dharmashala  to realise  the differential royalty  from the petitioner  for extraction of excess  blackstone  from Dankari Blackstone quarry.

21. The Tahasildar issued  demand notice  vide  letter no. 1878 dt. 28.5.2016  to Sribash Jena  to deposit  the  differential amount  of Rs. 58,62,79,633.00. Being aggrieved,  Sribash Jena  filed  a W.P. ( C )  No. 9885/2016  before  Orissa High Court  challenging  demand notice  issued by  the Tahasildar  for  realization of   differential amount.

22.The Hon’ble High Court  in their order dt. 28.9.2016   quashed  the  order of Tahasildar  and  directed  to pass  fresh order  in accordance with  law  after giving  opportunity  of hearing  to the  petitioner.

23. As per  order  of High Court, Tahasildar, Dharmashala  conducted  hearing of the case  on 6.1.2017  in the presence  of all the  parties  including  Sribash Jena  and it was  decided  to reassess  the quantity  of extraction  of blackstone  from 2002 to 2015  by  the Expert Team  of Deputy Director Mines , jajpur  in a survey  through scientific way.  The Deputy  Director  of Mines  vide letter no. 1763 dt. 20.9.17  expressed  his inability  to conduct  the survey  due  to non-availability  of  scientific equipment.

24.Then,  the Director  of mines , Bhubaneswar  was requested  vide District office letter No. 3185 dt. 29.11.2017  for reassessment  of the Minor mineral extracted from Dankari Black Stone quarry  and damage done/ loss of revenue  to Govt. exchequer.  But  no reassement  was done  by  Director of Mines. Sribash Jena  continued  to extract  blackstone  illegally. 

25.It  is very  interesting  to note  here that  the  Forest and Environment Dept., Government  of Odisha  vide letter No.  4363  dt. 2.3.2017  instructed  the Collector, Jajpur  to file case  against  the lease holder Sribash Jena  under section 15 and 19 of Environment Protection Act, 1986 for  extraction of minor minerals from  from Dankari Blackstone quarry without obtaining environment clearance.

26. Despite  several  orders, the District administration did  not  take  any action  against Sribash Jena  and rather allowed  him to  loot  blackstone.

27.Astonishingly , expressing  their  helplessness  before mighty Sribash Jena , the  whole district administration to save  their  face  filed  a case  bearing No. 2 ( C )  C.C No. 05/2017  in the  court  of JMFC , Chandikhole  against Sribash Jena  for  violating  the  provision of  EP Act, 1986.   As usual and as predicted ,  this case  is still  sub-judice  in the  court  of JMFC, Chandikhole.  The District administration did not  pursue  the case  just to allow Sribash Jena  to  continue his loot of blackstone on his own wish. It is alleged that all the district officials were bribed huge money for it.

28.  Having visualized visible nexus  of the whole  district administration with Sribash Jena,  Sri Sarbeswar Bhura  filed  a complaint  case  O.A. bearing No. 604/2018  before  National Green tribunal seeking an inquiry  into  illegal  operation  of mining activity  in 41.50 acres of forest land in  Dankari Hill.

29. On 31.8.2018, the Hon’ble NGT passed order  directing  the Secretary, dept. of Forest and Environment , Govt. of odisha  to constitute  a joint  inspection team  with representative  of State Pollution Control Board,  SEIAA Odisha,  Collector, Jajpur  to ascertain the facts  by visiting the site  and take appropriate steps  within one month.

30. As  per  recommendation of Joint enquiry  team,  the  Director, Environment -cum-Special secretary, department  of Forest and Environment  instructed  to the Collector, Jajpur to cancel  Environment  Clearance issued  by DEIAA, Jajpur.

31.On 12.10.2018, the Collector, Jajpur  revoked  all the environment  clearance issued in favour of  the lessee  of Dankari hill area.

32. After  obtaining  joint enquiry  report,  the Hon’ble NGT , New Delhi  in its order dt. 4.1.2019  directed  to the State Government  to deposit an interim compensation  of Rs. 25 crore  with Central pollution Control Board  within one month pending  for final assessment  conducted  by the joint committee  consisting of representative of CPCB,  Indian School of Mines, Dhanabad,  Forest Research Institute , Dehradun,  Chairman, SIEAA.

33.This  order  of NGT could not  be carried  out  because  prior  to it,  Sribash Jena  challenged  it  in Supreme Court vide  Civil Appeal No. 10113/2018  and got  a stary  order  on 26.10.2018.

34.On 19.3.2024,  the Hon’ble Supreme Court  vacated  the  stay  order and remanded  back  the  case  for fresh consideration by the  Hon’ble NGT, New Delhi.

35. As per SC order, The Original Application No. 604/2018 ( sarbeswar Behura vs Union of India and others )  was  heard  by NGT, New Delhi on 16.5.2024  and all the  opposite parties were  directed  to file  their submission before 20th August, 2024.

36.The next date  for  hearing  of the case  is fixed  on 29.11.24

37.The Case  was  heard  in NGT and  another  date  was  fixed  for  hearing  in the  month  of February, 25 , as the  Govt. sought more  time  to  submit   response.

 

By sarbeswar Behura

Petitioner

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Synchronization of Odisha’s 3 principal Panchayat laws in compliance to PESA Act 1996

 Consolidation, Updation and Synchronization of  Odisha’s 3 principal Panchayat laws in compliance to  Part-IX of Constitution and PESA Act 1996 –


A CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY IMPERATIVE

 Given the messy scenario prevailing around the administration of multiple, antiquated Panchayat laws in general and that of P-PESA Act 1996 in the   Scheduled Areas of the State in particular, what is required utmost is to undertake a drastic and in-depth policy review so as to identify the areas of non-conformity existing in Odisha’s 3 principal Panchayat Acts and Rules made there under vis-à-vis the mandates of 73rd Constitution Amendment, 1992 (now Part IX of Constitution) and PESA Act 1996. As a necessary corollary to such a grand review, a comprehensive road map needs to be delineated as to how to fix the erratically running existing legal-administrative regime of the State in conformity to the said mandates as required under Article 243N of the Constitution and Section 5 of PESA Act. 

 PROBLEMS TO BE ADDRESSED

 PROBLEM-1: Unlike most of the states who have a single, consolidated and updated Panchayat law (such as Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act 1994, Tamilnadu State Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Kerala State Panchayati Raj Act 1994, Assam State Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Tripura State Panchayati Raj Act 1993, Gujarat Panchayati Raj Act1993, Goa Panchayati Raj Act 1994, Haryana State Panchayati Raj Act 1994, Himachal Pradesh State Panchayati Raj Act 1994, Rajasthan State Panchayati Raj Act and Rules 1994, to name only a few) that governs all the 3-tier Panchayats  (Gram Panchayat, Intermediary Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat) in respective States, there exist 3 separate Panchayat laws in Odisha, each corresponding to a specific tier of Panchayat, such as Orissa Gram Panchayat Act 1964, Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act 1959 and Orissa Zilla Parishad Act 1991. As evident from the year of their enactments, these Panchayat laws were enacted before the 73rd Constitution Amendment 1992 was enforced with effect from 24th April 1993. Besides, the Rules made under Orissa’s 3 Panchayat Acts were also promulgated at different points of time, such as OGP Rules 1968, OPS (Administration of Affairs) Rules 1987 and OZP (Conduct of Business) Rules 1996, to name only a few. Thus, the first and foremost problem that the users of these Panchayat Acts and Rules face is the conspicuous absence of a single, consolidated law governing all the 3 tiers of Orissa’s PRIs unlike most of the states of the country where one finds in place, to the advantage of both citizens and administrators, a single, consolidated, simplified and user-friendly Panchayat Raj law, enacted in compliance to Article 243N of Constitution.     

 

The next, but more perplexing problem that the Orissa’s Panchayat laws suffer from is their naked violation of the focal mandate of the 73rd Constitution Amendment i.e. Article 243-G of Constitution, which provides for endowing the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government along with devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats in the matter of preparation of plans and implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice centring round a host of subjects that include but are not limited to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution. Though the Orissa Legislative Assembly passed the conformity amendments to its 3 principal Panchayat laws in 1994 and 1995 in purported compliance to Article 243-N of Constitution, such amendments instead of doing away with anachronistic provisions that stalked the pre-existing Panchayat laws, were merely inserted there unto, here and there and also made to co-exist with the latter, giving rise thereby to a chaotic jumble of the retrogressive old and progressive new, which turned out to be a quintessential negation of the letter and spirit of 73rd Amendment. For instance, every principal Panchayat law of Orissa contains a Chapter titled ‘Control’, such as Chapter-XI in OGP Act; Chapter-VI in OPS Act and Chapter-IV in OZP Act, which categorically provided for exercise of overriding powers of control by the whole gamut of executive authorities and officers who are external to the PRIs, and as such in flagrant contravention to the imperative of empowering the PRIs as institutions of self-government as mandated under Article 243-G of Constitution. Thus unless and until all the anachronistic and retrogressive provisions like Chapters on Control are removed once and for all, from the Orissa’s statutes on Panchayat Raj, the people of Orissa can’t have a feel of self-governing and autonomous PRIs as envisaged by the 73rd Amendment.   

           

Under the circumstances, what is needed is a revamping of Orissa’s 3 principal Panchayat laws so as to achieve two fold objectives, namely (I) Consolidating the 3 laws into a single, integrated, simple, user-friendly Panchayat Raj Act like the ones achieved by other states. (II) Alongside of the said consolidation exercise, it is to be ensured that the retrogressive and anachnostic provisions still crowding the State Panchayat laws are done away with so as to enable the PRIs to function as institutions of self-government as envisaged under Article 243-G.     

PROBLEM-2: As is well known, Article 243-M(1) of Constitution barred the forthwith extension of 73rd Amendment to the Scheduled Areas, but Article 243-M(4)(b) allowed its extension, provided the Parliament may enact a law providing for appropriate exceptions and modifications while extending Part-IX to the Scheduled Areas. In accordance with this constitutional mandate, the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act 1996, briefly called PESA Act was enacted by Parliament on 24 December 1996. As per Section 3 of the PESA Act, the provisions of Part-IX are being extended to the Scheduled Areas subject to such exceptions and modifications as are contained in Section 4 of the Act. The PESA Act being thus a quasi-constitutional law prefaces Section 4 with a bold, pre-emptive caveat along with a non-obstante clause that says, no State legislature shall make any law in derogation of the provisions stipulated there under. The sub-sections (a) to (o) of Section 4 contain a concise but inclusive charter of exceptions and modifications which required to be complied with by the Panchayat laws of a State having Scheduled Areas. Besides, Para-5 of PESA Act (Continuance of existing laws on Panchayats) categorically stipulated that all the competent legislatures (such as Parliament & State legislatures) and other competent authorities (such as President & Governor under Fifth Schedule) ought to repeal or amend all the provisions relating to Panchayats in the Scheduled Areas, in consistence with the exceptions and modifications made to Part-IX as stipulated in PESA Act, and that too, within a year of PESA enactment, that is, by 23rd December 1997, failing which all the provisions of Panchayat-related laws if found inconsistent with that of PESA Act shall automatically lose force. As a matter of fact, like many other States having Scheduled Areas, the State of Orissa amended its 3 principal Panchayat laws within the time-limit so specified in compliance to Para-5 of PESA Act, but woefully enough, such amendment made mere cosmetic changes to the pre-existing Panchayat laws of Orissa by inserting here and there, this or that provision culled from the PESA Act into the body of said Panchayat laws, without repealing or amending those very pre-existing provisions of Orissa’s Panchayat laws, which stood in naked conflict with the provisions of PESA Act. As a result, today’s Panchayat laws of Orissa which superficially contain the provisions of PESA Act, are in fact a chaotic hotch-potch of both PESA and anti-PESA provisions and are in no way compliant to the quintessential mandate of the said Act i.e. Gram Sabha as a self-governing and autonomous body of villagers to act as a superior authority in relation to any Panchayat or Administrative body. For instance, Chapters on Control still stalking the Panchayat laws of Orissa which bestow powers to external administrative bodies, do nullify the overriding powers and authority entrusted under PESA Act to Gram Sabha in respect of very many matters to effectuate self-governance of a village community in Scheduled Areas. In sum, the existing 3 Panchayat laws of Orissa, though formally amended in purported compliance to Section 243-N of Constitution and Para-5 of PESA Act in 1994 and 1997 respectively, do, in fact, not only conflict with the letter and spirit of Part –IX of Constitution, but also with the mandate underlying Para-5 of PESA Act.     

     

Under the circumstances, what is utmost desirable at the moment is to ensure that while the much needed consolidation of Orissa’s 3 separate Panchayat laws into a single, integrated law on Panchayat Raj in synchrony with the provisions of Part-IX of the Constitution is undertaken, meticulous efforts are to be made at the same time to incorporate the provisions of PESA Act into the revamped body of that law at appropriate places in respect of Scheduled Areas, in order to comply, belatedly though, with the mandate underlying the Para-5 of PESA Act.  

 

PROBLEM- 3: The Panchayat laws of Orissa, even after their amendment in purported compliance to Section 5 of PESA Act, do continue to suffer from a paradoxical incongruity in respect of definition and constitution of Gram Sabha, the very foundational fulcrum of both Panchayat Raj and Scheduled Area governance. It is a matter of great irony that OGP Act contains two different, confusing definitions of village vide ‘Grama’ under Section 2(g) and ‘Village’ under Section 2(u) of the said Act. Peculiarly enough, ‘Grama’ as further defined under Section 3 is constituted of ‘any village or group of contiguous villages’ which implies that a Grama is not necessarily a Village and can be a group of Villages too. As to the question what is a village, it is as defined in Section 2(u) of the Act ‘any area recorded as a village in the revenue records of the district’ and in absence of any such records, ‘any area as the Collector of the district may from time to time declare to be a village for the purpose of this Act’. Thus, plainly speaking, a Grama is not a Village and conversely, a Village is not a Grama. One therefore can’t translate ‘Village’ as Grama and vice versa. Besides, the population of a Grama can range from two thousand at minimum to ten thousand at maximum vide Section 3(3), while the minimum or maximum population of a Village has not been stipulated anywhere. Perhaps, to skirt around this conundrum centring round Grama and Village, the OGP Act has devised another concept called ‘Palli Sabha’ vide its Section 6. It is said, a Palli Sabha is normally coterminous with a Village except where a Ward of the Grama as constituted under Section 8, if consisting of more than one village, there shall be only a single Palli Sabha in that case. Thus, Palli Sabha, both theoretically and practically speaking, is coterminous neither with a Village nor with a Ward. Besides, it is the Palli Sabha, not Gram Sabha as such, which acts as the decisive body in respect of formulation of plans and programmes and selection of beneficiaries thereof vide Section 6(7) of the OGP Act. Such a problematic and confusing jugglery around basic terminology of Panchayat Raj is however not noticeable in the Panchayat laws of any other State. Besides, this complicated scenario around Orissa Panchahayt laws has been further confounded after enforcement of PESA Act, in which Village and Grama are coterminous entities and it may consist of a single or multiple habitations but used by a single community vide Section 4(b) of the PESA Act and all the members of the Village or Grama who are entered into the electoral rolls of the Panchayat of that Village/Grama shall constitute the Gram Sabha vide Section 4(c) of PESA Act. Though OGP Act in its Amendment of 1997 has formally incorporated the above provisions of PESA Act relating to reconstitution of Village/Grama in the Scheduled Areas vide Proviso to Section 3 of OGP Act 1964, it has however diluted the PESA’s thrust on a single community constituting a Village/Grama, by way of perfunctorily mentioning ‘a community or communities’. Above all, Government of Odisha has not made any endeavour to reconstitute the Village/Grama in the Scheduled Areas as required under PESA Act. Under the circumstances, the formation of a Villages Reorganisation Commission at State level is barely necessary to reconstitute the Villages/Gramas in non-Scheduled Areas in accordance with Part IX of Constitution and in the Scheduled Areas in accordance with PESA Act in the interest of much needed revamping of Odisha’s Panchayat Raj. 

                               

PROBLEM-4: As already stated, Article 243G mandates the devolution of such powers and authority by the State legislatures on the Panchayats as to enable them to function as institutions of self-government in respect of matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. As is well known, the Eleventh Schedule which was added to the Constitution as a part of 73rd Constitution Amendment, contains a list of 29 subjects which directly bear on the life and livelihood of the villagers, e.g. Agriculture, Land Reforms, Irrigation, Animal husbandry, Minor Forest Produce, Drinking Water, Rural Electrification, Roads and Bridges, Non-conventional energy, Education, Health and Sanitation, SC/ST Welfares, Public Distribution System, Markets and Fairs, Family Welfare, Women and Child Development, Maintenance of Community Assets etc. As a matter of fact, the Odisha’s 3 principal Panchayat laws and their conformity amendments of 1994 enacted in the wake of 73rd Constitution Amendment do provide for formal powers and authority of Panchayats exercisable over a plethora of subjects including the ones listed in the Eleventh Schedule [vide Section 5 (Grama Sabha and its functions) and Chapter VI (Powers, Duties and Functions of Grama Panchayat) of OGP Act], but the ground reality is that the real exercise of powers and authority still rests with the various line Departments of State Government at the level of Secretariat or Directorate in absence of any commensurate amendment in respect of the pre-existing state laws governing  the above said subjects. For instance, going by Article 243-G read with Item No. 14 of Eleventh Schedule, Rural Electrification including Distribution of Electricity ought to come under the Panchayat domain, but it is now administered by Odisha Power Transmission Corporation Limited working under the State Department of Energy. 

 

A worse scenario in respect of devolution of powers and authority to Grama Sabha and Panchayats is noticeable vis-a-vis PESA Act 1996 and its implementation in Odisha. As such, PESA Act mandates state legislatures and competent authorities to devolve powers and authority on Gram Sabha and Panchayats in respect to a whole universe of matters relating to the life and livelihood of the people living in Scheduled Areas, be it their religion, culture, natural resources, land use, minor forest produce, minor minerals, development of any sort and even Tribal Sub-plan. But the ground reality speaks a different tale owing to continuance of control exercised by the State Departments and their functionaries as per the pre-existing subject laws. For instance, it is not a Gram Sabha or a Panchayat that licenses and collects royalty for the extraction of minor minerals in the Scheduled Areas of Odishha as required under Section 4(k and l) of PESA Act, but the whole business is carried on under the control of Tahsildar of Revenue Dept under Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2004.

 

Thus, there exists a strong imperative for identifying the anachronistic laws and bye-laws and incongruous administrative regimes that hinder the devolution of powers and authority on Gram Sabha and Panchayats in Odisha as required under Part-IX of Constitution and PESA Act 1996 and consequently for building up a doable roadmap for effecting a comprehensive amendment thereto.   

                

PROBLEM-5: As is well known, Section 4(d) of PESA Act proclaims Gram Sabha as the competent authority inter alia for safeguard and preservation of customary mode of dispute resolution in the Scheduled Areas. In fact, OGP (Amendment) Act 1997, which was enacted in purported compliance to Para-5 of PESA Act, inserted inter alia this very provision, which stands now as Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the amended OGP Act. However, this very provision till date remains a dead letter on the statute book for a number of reasons. Firstly, to operationalise the provision of customary dispute resolution, the OGP Rules 1968 has not yet been correspondingly amended to that effect. Secondly, the mainstream juridical codes that govern the administration of justice in both civil and criminal spheres such as IPC 1860, CrPC 1973, Police Act 1961, CPC 1908 and Evidence Act 1872 etc., are yet to recognize and accommodate the tradition and practice of customary dispute resolution as prevalent among the tribal communities in general and in the Scheduled Areas in particular. Thirdly, as per Para-5 of Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, the Governor of a State having Scheduled Areas, who has exclusive and overriding power to make any Regulation for the peace and good governance of the said areas, can, if he so deems necessary, make a Regulation to provide for the procedural manual for operationalising the customary dispute resolution in the Scheduled Areas, as envisaged under Section 4(d) of PESA Act or as stipulated, perfunctorily though, in Section 5(6) of Amended OGP Act. However, the Governor of Orissa, though credited with promulgation of special laws for Scheduled Areas such as Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulation 1956) and Orissa (Scheduled Areas) Money-lenders’ Regulation 1967, is yet to make any such Regulation for effectuating the customary mode of dispute resolution in the Scheduled Areas. Fourthly, long before the PESA Act 1996 provided for the customary mode of resolution in the Scheduled Areas, the OGP Act 1948 (repealed by the OGP Act 1964), provided for a workable mechanism of customary dispute resolution in the shape of Panchayat Police and Adalati Pnchayat in Chapters VI and VII and Schedules II and III of the said Act. Interestingly enough, these provisions of 1948 Act were saved from repeal by the OGP Act 1964 which repealed and replaced the OGP Act 1948. As of now, Section 153(e) and Section 154 of the existing OGP Act 1964, do provide for continuance of the provisions of Panchayat Police and Adalati Panchayat. However, in absence of any necessary provisions made in the existing OGP Rules 1968 in correspondence to the said statutory provisions, the wholesome dispensation of Panchayat Police and Adalati Panchayat, which is nothing but a system of customary dispute resolution in the language of PESA, are conspicuously missing out from the entire countryside of Orissa, let alone the Scheduled Areas. Such Rules can be framed either by the Orissa Department of Panchayat Raj subject to approval by the Orissa Legislative Assembly to give effect to Section 154 (Saving in respect of Panchayat Police and Adalati Panchayat) of OGP Act 1964 or by the Governor Orissa in the shape of a Regulation under Para-5 of Fifth Schedule to Constitution to give effect to Section 4(d) of PESA Act that provides for Gram Sabha’s competency to preserve and safeguard the customary mode of dispute resolution in Scheduled Areas. However, neither of the above authorities has shown any inclination, let alone initiative, to restore the customary mode of dispute resolution to its rightful place, notwithstanding the unequivocal mandate to that effect enshrined in the OGP Act 1964 and PESA Act 1996. Fifthly, the Union Government in the Ministry of Panchayat Raj or the Ministry of Tribal Affairs has a crucial role to play in giving effect to the provision for customary mode of dispute resolution in Scheduled Areas as mandated inter alia under Section 4(d) of PESA Act, by way of exercising their power under Para-3 of Fifth Schedule to the Constitution, which inter alia reads, “….. the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of directions to the State as to the administration of the said areas.” As a matter of fact, in exercise of this power the Ministry of Panchayat Raj, GoI had constituted a Sub-committee headed by Dr. B.D. Sharma, which submitted ‘Model Guidelines to vest Gram Sabhas with powers as envisaged under PESA Act’ for adoption by all states having Scheduled Areas. The said Model Guidelines had stipulated inter alia as to how a Gram Sabha in the Scheduled Areas can functionalize the customary mode of dispute resolution as envisaged under the PESA Act. But, after a brisk flurry of letters and circulars issued by MoPR to PESA states, there has been virtually no follow-up either by the Central Government or by the said States till date as to the operationalisation of Model Guidelines. 

 

Under the circumstances, a multipronged endeavour by all competent legislatures (Parliament and State Legislative Assembly) and other competent authorities (Governor of s State and President of India as per Fifth Schedule to Constitution) is the need of the hour to effectuate the customary mode of dispute resolution as envisaged under Section 4(d) of PESA Act. While the Parliament can make a law to incorporate this provision in the principal legal codes such as IPC, CrPC and CPC etc.as a follow-up to the PESA Act the Govt of Orissa subject to approval by Orissa Legislative Assembly can frame appropriate Rules to give effect to saving clause of Section 154 of existing OGP Act 1964 even pending the consolidation of Panchayat laws in synchrony with Part-IX of Constitution and PESA Act. As an alternative to the above two options, the Governor of Orissa in exercise of his power vested under Para-5 of Fifth Schedule to Constitution can promulgate a comprehensive Regulation for giving effect to the provision of customary mode of dispute resolution for Scheduled Areas of the State in compliance to Section 4(d) of PESA Act. 

 

Outcomes envisaged:                         

1)    A rigorous, comprehensive analysis of the commissions and omissions afflicting Orissa’s 3 principal Panchayat laws and related sub-ordinate legislations vis-à-vis the mandates of Part-IX of Constitution and PESA Act; 

 

2)    A draft consolidated and integrated Panchayat law for Orissa in place of existing 3 Acts and numerous Rules, in compliance to the mandates of Part-IX and PESA Act; 

 

 

3)    A compilation of Recommendations made by different Committees and Commissions set up at Central level and at Orissa level for amendment to existing laws for effecting their synchronization with Part-IX of Constitution and PESA Act; 

 

4)    A Draft framework for operationalising the Customary Mode of Dispute Resolution in respect of the Scheduled Areas of Orissa, taking the cue from the ‘Model Guidelines to vest Gram Sabhas with powers as envisaged under PESA’ submitted by the Sub-committee headed by Dr. B.D. Sharma to Ministry of Panchayat Raj, Govt of India; 

 

 

5)    A draft list of proposed amendments along with the notes in justification of the same, in respect of a number of related Orissa Acts and Rules other than the 3 principal Panchayat laws of Orissa and Rules made there under, such as the existing state laws relating to excise, forest, revenue, police, market, cooperative, public works and mining etc, with a view to bringing each of them in sync with Part-IX read with Eleventh Schedule of Constitution and also PESA Act; 

 

6)    A draft list of proposed amendments along with notes in justification of the same, for incorporation into Central laws like IPC, CrPC, CPC, Indian Registration Act 1908, Indian Forest Act 1927, MMDR Act 1957 etc and Rules made there under, in keeping with letter and spirit of Part-IX read with Eleventh Schedule of Constitution and also PESA Act; 

 

 

7)    A list of Govt and non-Govt organizations within and outside Orissa which have been engaged with kindred issues over the years; 

 

8)    A compilation of judicial pronouncements by Supreme Court and High Courts of Orissa bearing on the issues of synchronization of existing laws with Part-IX of Constitution and PESA Act;  

 9)    A list of national and state level agencies functioning within the Govt of India and Govt of Orissa, before whom representations can be made by civil society organizations for the purpose of synchronization of existing Panchayat laws and Panchayat related laws with Part-IX of Constitution and PESA Act; and 

 

10) Existing scenario at the ground level in Orissa vis-à-vis the mandates of Part-IX of Constitution and PESA Act, to be captured on the basis of secondary sources as well as visits by the review team to the selected Panchayats in both Scheduled and non-Scheduled Areas.   

             

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prepared jointly by Sri Sandip Kumar Patnaik (Mob- 99380 632275) and Sri Chitta Ranjan Behera (Mob- 9437577546), dt 14.12.2023