Assailing the findings of IAS officer U. Sagayam, the court-appointed Legal Commissioner to probe the illegal granite mining in Madurai district, the Federation of Indian Granite and Stone Industry (FIGSI) claimed in the Madras High Court that the Commissioner had mechanically arrived at a loss of Rs1.10 lakh crore to the public exchequer based on presumptions and assumptions.
Mr. Sagayam was appointed to probe the illegal granite mining on a public interest litigation petition filed by activist ‘Traffic’ K.R. Ramaswamy.
The FIGSI, which was impleaded as a party respondent in the PIL represented by its general secretary N.K. Aswathrama submitted that Tamil Nadu’s export of granite and products during the year 2000-2001 was Rs.258.12 crore, in 2005-2006 it was Rs.1,047.18 crore, during 2010-2011 it was Rs.1,677.97 crore and during 2012-2013 it was Rs.2,382.47 crore. “While the facts being so, alleging that there was illicit quarrying of granites, the Madurai administration issued several show cause notices to the granite lessees claiming that they have caused loss to the State exchequer to the extent of Rs.16,000 crore. Further, it was given to understand that a claim was made before this court that due to illicit quarrying, loss to an extent of Rs1.10 lakh crore was caused by granite lessees to the State government in Madurai district alone. The FIGSI being an expert body and much concerned about the development of stone industry, thought it fit to place all the relevant materials before this court,” senior counsel for the federation said.
After August 2012, Geology and Mining officials measured the length, breadth and height of the excavated granite pit on volumetric basis, arithmetically calculated without geological mapping and inputs by not taking into account the genetic and laterally disturbed geological province. They adopted a “whopping” 90 per cent sale worthy recovery instead of proven 10 to 20 per cent, he added.
Noting that it was a trade practice to allow buyers allowances ranging from 5 cubic meter to 20 cubic meter depending upon the quality, colour, cracks and other natural defects, which was not considered, senior counsel said, “This was a very important fundamental issue and unless this was resolved and the actual percentage of recovery was determined, any decision on assumption and presumption will be flawed and will be without any basis.”
Recording the submissions, the First Bench of Chief Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice R. Mahadevan posted the PIL to January 11, 2017 for further hearing.
