Competitive Resource Tenders and Maximization of Revenue

COMPETITIVE RESOURCE TENDERS & A ; MAXIMIZATION OF REVENUE

RESEARCH PAPER

MINERAL LAW & A ; POLICY

Table OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Research Methodology

Aims

Research Questions

Mode of Citation

Method

Beginnings of Datas

I.Competitive Resource Tenders are justified.

Open Mineral Access

Competitive Resource Tenders

Advantages of Competitive Resources Tenders

Lacunae with First Come First Serve footing

CRT’s are in consonant rhyme with the Public Trust Doctrine

Judiciary has a really limited range to reexamine the policy determinations of the authorities

CRT’s is in consonant rhyme with the philosophy of equality

Argument of favoritism between the bing allocatees and the hereafter allocates can non stand.

Arguments of drawbacks in competitory allotment of resources do non stand

II.11A permits the authorities power companies an unjust competitory advantageous place in securing power stamps under competitory command path.

Decision

Bibliography

Introduction

Competitive Resource Tenders ( CRT’s ) or Competitive command in mining rental in regard of an country incorporating coal or brown coal, is the method to choose the individual who quotes the lowest monetary value or the best footings for a peculiar undertaking. Competitive command has many advantages as it allows the best possible choice on virtues dependent on the efficiency of production of the bidder. Competitive command is used for allowing licences, undertaking, and rentals by the authorities in assorted sectors including telecommunication, excavation rentals, etc.

This paper focuses on the competitory command which will be used by the Government to allow prospective licences, reconnaissance license and excavation rentals. This power to the authorities is brought through a recent amendment in the Mining and Mineral Development and Regulation Act, 1957 ( MMDR Act ) which came into force on 13ThursdayFeb. , 2012 2011. The proviso allows the authorities to allow the said licenses in regard of the countries incorporating coal or lignite merely.

This paper shall be comparing assorted other methods which may be used for grant of such licences or licenses and will therefore conclude by keeping Competitive command as the best method of allotment. Furthermore, as it is a policy determination of the authorities to choose for any method, the cheque of flightiness as enshrined in Article 14 shall besides be touched upon by this paper.

Furthermore, this paper shall be discoursing the settled jurisprudence and the law as laid down by the apex tribunal in this regard. Last, this paper shall besides be discoursing the statements as observed by the Standing Committee in against and favour of this amendment to the MMDR Act. The paper shall be reasoning by keeping that the competitory method is the best possible method for grant of such licences and Sec. 11A does non endure any inconformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Research Methodology

Aims

This paper aims to inform the current argument, concentrating in peculiar on competitory resource allotment systems ( besides referred to as mineral rights auction or stamp systems ) , which certain stakeholders have proposed as an option to the bing FIFA system

Research Questions

1. Whether ‘Competitive bidding’ as a standard to allow excavation rental legitimate? Is it a judicial inquiry or a policy determination beyond the ambit ofjudicial reappraisal?

2. Whether the exclusion granted under Sec. 11A ( provision ) to the authorities power undertaking companies, be advancing an unjust competitory advantage?

Mode of Citation

The research worker has followed a unvarying manner of commendation throughout this undertaking paper.

Method

The research undertaken is descriptive in nature with an analysis drawn from the evolving and already established Jurisprudence with regard to the subject-matter of this undertaking.

Beginnings of Datas

The research worker has relied upon Primary beginning every bit good as the secondary beginnings. Well, the primary beginnings are more relied upon to set up the authors’ base.

I. Competitive Resource Tenders are justified.

Competition among the mineworkers to work such resources hence known as competitory command. There are assorted methods which may be/were used for grant of licences or licenses. These may be divided into:

  1. Open mineral entree [ 1 ]
  2. Competitive Resource Tenders [ 2 ]

Open Mineral Access

Open mineral entree is the procedure of grant on the footing of ‘first semen foremost function basis’ and when the mineralization of the country is non known. This choice is based on standard cadastral unit whose country may be expanded or reduced through geographic expedition activities. Exploration right can non conflict with restricted countries such as urban countries protected home grounds or major substructures or with other sole mineral rights and can non incorporate represented mineral resources.

The rush footing system encourages mineral geographic expedition by the private sector in countries where there is no or small cognition of militias ; whereas this procedure is administratively puts less load on the authorities and it supports faster dispensation of applications.

ALSO READ  Information systems strategic planning Essay

Competitive Resource Tenders

CRT’s is the procedure of allowing mineral rights through auction/bidding procedure. As per World Bank, this allows geographic expedition for the countries where mineralization is known. In instance of CRT’s, the mineral resources are known in footings of their geological location [ 3 ] , prospecting & A ; reconnaissance of such minerals already done ; such mineral are already explored i.e. cognition of being of mineral resources is at that place.

CRT’s mostly presumes a greater cognition of mineral potency ( either from earlier geographic expedition or excavation activities, or the acknowledgment that some minerals are likely to be found in peculiar geological formations ) and an increased demand of rights as evidenced by the being of several companies interested in using for the same license country.

Advantages of Competitive Resources Tenders

It is believed that a province must weigh the benefits of the auction system against the hazard of holds in the development of the country’s mineral resources, and other costs and hazards associated with such a system. The literature on resource allotment systems by and large recognizes three likely advantages of competitory resource allotment systems. They can procure a larger portion of economic rents of mineral resources to the province, address informational disadvantages of the province vis-a-vis private companies, and, when good designed, breed greater transparence in the rights allotment procedure.

Competitive command systems produce best consequences where bing geosciences informations indicates the presence of potentially high-value mineral sedimentations. Well-structured competitory command systems have the advantage of qualifying clear and crystalline allotment regulations that limit chances for favouritism and maltreatment. However, this requires that rating standards, timelines, geological informations and other critical information related to commands are clear to all possible bidders. Such information must besides be good publicized.

Most states that have implemented a competitory command system for presenting mineral rights have retained the first semen foremost function footing system for countries where hapless geoscience informations is available. Policymakers hence are non required to take between a pure foremost come foremost serve footing and a competitory system, but may choose for a assorted system. Furthermore, competitory command systems need non trust on a simplistic ‘highest command wins’ expression, but should besides incorporate pre-qualification standards related to environmental, societal and transmutation policy ends. Competitive allotment procedure is that such systems can procure greater value for authoritiess in the short term by bring forthing grosss through the command procedure. [ 4 ] Hence, these virtues reach to a decision that CRT’s shall be used over first come foremost serve footing as CRT’s takes into consideration the factors like proficient expertness, fiscal strength, and other efficiency factors which enables a company to cite the lowest monetary value to win in the command procedure.

Lacunae with First Come First Serve footing

There is a fundament defect in first come first service policy as it involves an component of pure opportunity or accident. In affairs refering award of contracts or grant of licence or permission to utilize public belongings, the supplication of first-come-first-served policy has inherently unsafe deductions. Further if any individual who has entree to the power corridor at the highest or the lowest degree or at any degree may be able to obtain information from authorities files or the files of the bureau or from instrumentality of the province that such public belongings or assets is likely to be disposed of or a contract is likely to be awarded or a licence or permission is likely to be given, so that individual would instantly do an application and would go entitled to stand foremost in the waiting line at the cost of all others who may hold a better claims.

It was repeatedly held by the honest apex tribunal that whenever a contract is to be awarded or license to be given, the authorization must take up a transparent and just method for doing choice. So, that all the parties at same degree should acquire the equal and just chance of Competition. [ 5 ]

Hence, in first come foremost serve footing natural resources may fall into the custodies of some unscrupulous parties holding no echt desire of supplying proper services by utilizing them and natural resource merely is used by them to gain immense net incomes by its indirect sale or by other agencies. [ 6 ] Alternatively, method of allotment of natural resource i.e. auction through competitory command, which ensured that the natural resource is allocated to the meriting parties who needed it to supply proper service, and at the same clip would hold yield high gross to province. [ 7 ] Therefore, this apprehension besides guides us to understand that the procedure of first come foremost serve suffers with many blanks and same shall be overcome through acceptance of CRT’s.

ALSO READ  Undue Influence law

CRT’s are in consonant rhyme with the Public Trust Doctrine

Public trust philosophy established in M.C. Mehta v. Lamal Nath [ 8 ] puts an inexplicit limitation on the right of the State to reassign public belongingss to private party if such transportation affects public involvement. Furthermore, it mandates affirmatory State action for effectual direction of natural resources and empowers the citizens to oppugn uneffective direction. [ 9 ]

Further, the Supreme Court inS.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab and others[ 10 ],held that the Constitutional authorization is that the natural resources belong to the people of the state and natural resources are vested with the Government as a affair of trust to the people of India and it is the grave responsibility of the State to protect the national involvement and natural resources. The same rule of answerability of province was reiterated inReliance Natural Resources Limited v. Reliance Industries Limited[ 11 ].

Therefore it is the responsibility of the province to apportion natural resources in the mode that it best sub-serves the common good and public involvement, and this is held to be the primary consideration for the allocation/ dispensation. Like any other province action, constitutionalism must be reflected at every phase of the distribution of natural resources. Furthermore the distribution procedure must be just and crystalline affording equal chance to all interested parties. [ 12 ] If the natural resources are distributed by unwise economic determination of a authorities section it may take to misallocation/ abuse of scarce resources. [ 13 ] Hence, the being and observation of the CRT’s in this regard is justified as per the law developed in India and hence, CRT’s does go through the trial of public trust philosophy, whereas the first semen foremost function footing still leaves the inquiries unanswered.

Judiciary has a really limited range to reexamine the policy determinations of the authorities

This is a practical statement in favour of the CRT’s as it is a settled jurisprudence that the bench can non interfere with the policy determinations of the authorities, provided they are non arbitrary on the face of it. [ 14 ] The authorities has the discretion to take among the methods as every method has its ain virtues and demerits. Hence, with this discretion the authorities has selected CRT’s to be a method over first come foremost function method and hence, this does measure up as a policy determination of the authorities. Further, as the delivery of this procedure is non arbitrary or unreasonable on the face of it, the range for judicial reappraisal is limited and can non oppugn the same. Therefore, for this ground besides, the CRT’s are justified.

CRT’s is in consonant rhyme with the philosophy of equality

Doctrine of equality is interpreted to hold two limbs,foremost, it regulates the rights and duties of the State counterpart its people and demands that the people be granted just entree to natural resources and/or its merchandises and that they are adequately compensated for the transportation of the resource to the private sphere ; andsecondly, it regulates the rights and duties of the State vis-a-vis private parties seeking to acquire/use the resource and demands that the process adopted for distribution is merely, non-arbitrary and crystalline and that it does non know apart between likewise placed private parties.

CRT’s are backed with efficiency at every degree which allows a party to cite the minimal monetary value and therefore, an equal competitory chance is provided to all the bidders and the most efficient one is granted the same. This ensures the rule of ‘equality among equals’ as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence is justified.

Argument of favoritism between the bing allocatees and the hereafter allocates can non stand.

Argument about favoritism between new and bing allocatees is non a sound one. Any alteration in policy that is considered in public involvement can be made merely prospectively and can non be found mistake with on the land that donees of earlier policy had greater advantage.

Arguments of drawbacks in competitory allotment of resources do non stand

There are some possible downsides to see when using the auction command system. One of the primary challenges is that such a system requires the authorities to place command countries and later administrate the command procedure. In pattern, authoritiess can ask for stamps merely for countries that have known geological potency. Exploration activity and mine development can hence be significantly delayed, thereby suppressing the growing of the excavation sector. An auction command system by and large carries high dealing costs for the province.

ALSO READ  Intellectual Property Rights

This is a major issue that policymakers must weigh carefully. Furthermore, international experience has shown that even robust pre-screening procedures and non-compliance punishments may non be able to forestall unscrupulous guess by mining operators, extended legal entreaties to rights allotment determinations, and the failure of winning bidders to follow with the committednesss that they had specified in their commands.

The premiss of this statement is based on the given that if the party measure uping the competitory command fails to bring forth what it was expected to that the cost on the ex-chequer will be more and hence, the same shall be minimized. However, it is settled that better the auction, more will be the gross for the ex-chequer and hence, there is a surely a hazard which shall be ever present when the measure uping bidder fails to execute its maps. But, this non-performance is minimum when compared to the gross generated to the authorities when the command is successful and hence this statement do non keep nay land.

II. 11A permits the authorities power companies an unjust competitory advantageous place in securing power stamps under competitory command path.

The Act under Section 11A requires the private entities to take part in competitory command and auctioning for grant of mineral grants, including excavation rental, Proviso ( a ) exempts Government Companies from the same. It may be noted that the freedom available to a power company from take parting in competitory command and auctioning ( Proviso ( B ) ) applies merely when such a company has already been awarded a power undertaking on the footing of competitory commands for power duty.

As per Electricity Act, 2003 and National Tariff Policy, electricity distribution companies ( Discoms ) can secure power merely through competitory command path. From 5.1.2011, even the Government owned coevals companies, such as NTPC, have to take part in competitory command procedure of the Discoms to sell their power to Discoms. But due to Section 11A, authorities companies, such as NTPC, Nevyeli Lignite will be able to secure excavation rentals at prices/rates which are below market rates discovered through competitory command procedure. This will take to an advantage given to authorities companies in grant of mineral grants, peculiarly excavation rentals, and will therefore give unjust competitory advantage to such authorities companies in the Discom ‘s stamp procedure for procurance of power as their cost of coal will be less than the market monetary value, while Independent Power Producers will merely be able to offer at a higher duty on history of procurance of coal though competitory command and auctions.

Therefore, this will endanger equal chance as prescribed in Competitive Bidding Guidelines ( CBG ) model notified by Government of India, Ministry of Power in 2006. Besides the above, apportioning coal mines without following the auction path to authorities companies ( other than academic, statistical, geological or geophysical, R & A ; D authorities governments ) would get the better of the basic purpose of the Act as enumerated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Bill – “ …incentivizing private sector investing in geographic expedition and excavation and guaranting flat playing field and transparence in the grant of grants and publicity of scientific excavation within a sustainable development model… ”

Therefore, in my position, the freedom provided to Government Companies from obtaining assorted mineral grants without take parting in the auction procedure as provided in these sub-sections shall be revised to except those Government Companies whose concern aim under their Articles of Association is power coevals. Even in instance of other Government Companies the option to allow such licence without following auction path may be provided by several Central or State Government on exceeding footing.

I observe that Proviso to Sec. 11A gives advantage to authorities companies in grant of mineral grants peculiarly mining rentals giving unjust competitory command advantage to these authorities companies in the Discom ‘s stamp procedure for procurance of power as their cost of coal will be less than the market monetary value while independent power manufacturers will merely be able to offer at a high duty on history of procurance of coal through competitory command and auction. Therefore I conclude that the fright that allowing of mining rental to Government organisation is against the purpose of reforms introduced by the Government is good founded.

Decision

Bibliography

[1]