Lafarge fate still hangs in balance | Bangladesh | bdnews24.com
Lafarge fate still hangs in balance
Sun, Jan 16th, 2011 8:19 pm
bdnews24.com New Delhi correspondent
New Delhi, Jan 16 (bdnews24.com)India's Supreme Court has asked Lafarge to furnish documents it had presented to financial institutions to get funds for its integrated project of limestone mining in Meghalaya state and cement plant at Chhatak in Sunamganj.
The court order came after an eminent lawyer assisting its special forest bench as amicas curiae submitted before it that India's obligations to Bangladesh had nothing to do with supply of limestone from the mining project of the Lafarge in Meghalaya to the French multi-national's plant in Chhatak.
India's apex court in February 2010 had halted limestone mining by Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited or LUMPL at Nongtrai in East Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya. The LUMPL is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Lafarge Surma Cement Limited (LSCL).
The LUMPL had earlier been transporting limestone mined from Nongtrai to the cement plant of the LSCL and Spanish company Cementos Molins at Chhatak by a 17-kilometre long cross-border conveyer belt.
The LSCL plant at Chhatak has a capacity of producing 1.5 MT cement every year.
Indian government had on March 24 last year told the Supreme Court that the latter's order halting mining and supply of limestone from Meghalaya to Lafarge's cement plant in Bangladesh is disturbing the bilateral relation between the two neighbours.
India's attorney general G E Vahanvati had told the court that the order to halt limestone mining had hit production at the Lafarge's US $ 255 million state-of-the-art plant at Chhatak.
But during a hearing on the case last week, eminent lawyer Harish Salve submitted to the court that the LUMPL's mining project in Meghalaya had "no connection with the commitments" of India to Bangladesh".
He also submitted that the LUMPL was mining limestone in a forest land. "It is obvious that this area was forest and any suggestion to the contrary is simply not true," he said. Salve is assisting the court in the case as amicus curiae.
The special forest bench of the Supreme Court had halted mining, acting on a petition of a local tribal organization, which alleged that exploitation of natural resources by Lafarge at Nongtrai was posing a threat to environment and changing rainfall pattern in the ecologically fragile area.
Nongtrai is in the vicinity of Cherrapunji, which once received maximum rainfall in the world and was known as the wettest place on earth. The Shella Joint Action Committee or SJAC, a local organisation, had filed a lawsuit alleging that rainfall in and around Nongtrai had drastically come down due to large-scale denudation of forest caused by limestone mining by Lafarge.
The Bangladesh government on March 2 last year had written to the Indian high commissioner in Dhaka expressing concern over Supreme Court's ban on halting of limestone mining and supply to the cement plant at Chhatak.
The Supreme Court's special forest bench now hearing the case comprises India's Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices Aftab Alam and K S Radhakrishnan.
Appearing for the SJAC, senior advocate S Devan argued before the court last Friday that the Lafarge could not claim that it had no knowledge of any forest area in the mining area before embarking on the project.
Devan submitted that Lafarge's cement plant in Bangladesh was a huge project and required funding from international financial institutions.
Hence, the lawyer added, a Detailed Project Report must have been prepared and the report might have mentioned about the topography of the area where the limestone mining was proposed for supply of raw materials to the plant in Chhatak.
The court directed Lafarge to submit the DPR, which it had presented to the banks to get loans for the project. It also directed the Indian government to submit a copy of the approval granted for the mining project to Lum Mawshun Minerals Private Limited in June 1999.
The Lum Mawshun Minerals Private Limited had first got the clearance for the mining project from the forest department of the state government of Meghalaya. The clearance was transferred to the LUMPL in 2002.
But the clearance given to Lum Mawshun Minerals Limited came under doubt after the state government's Chief Conservator of Forest in 2007 noted that the mining project was located in the midst of natural and virgin forest.
Lafarge fate still hangs in balance
Sun, Jan 16th, 2011 8:19 pm
bdnews24.com New Delhi correspondent
New Delhi, Jan 16 (bdnews24.com)India's Supreme Court has asked Lafarge to furnish documents it had presented to financial institutions to get funds for its integrated project of limestone mining in Meghalaya state and cement plant at Chhatak in Sunamganj.
The court order came after an eminent lawyer assisting its special forest bench as amicas curiae submitted before it that India's obligations to Bangladesh had nothing to do with supply of limestone from the mining project of the Lafarge in Meghalaya to the French multi-national's plant in Chhatak.
India's apex court in February 2010 had halted limestone mining by Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited or LUMPL at Nongtrai in East Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya. The LUMPL is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Lafarge Surma Cement Limited (LSCL).
The LUMPL had earlier been transporting limestone mined from Nongtrai to the cement plant of the LSCL and Spanish company Cementos Molins at Chhatak by a 17-kilometre long cross-border conveyer belt.
The LSCL plant at Chhatak has a capacity of producing 1.5 MT cement every year.
Indian government had on March 24 last year told the Supreme Court that the latter's order halting mining and supply of limestone from Meghalaya to Lafarge's cement plant in Bangladesh is disturbing the bilateral relation between the two neighbours.
India's attorney general G E Vahanvati had told the court that the order to halt limestone mining had hit production at the Lafarge's US $ 255 million state-of-the-art plant at Chhatak.
But during a hearing on the case last week, eminent lawyer Harish Salve submitted to the court that the LUMPL's mining project in Meghalaya had "no connection with the commitments" of India to Bangladesh".
He also submitted that the LUMPL was mining limestone in a forest land. "It is obvious that this area was forest and any suggestion to the contrary is simply not true," he said. Salve is assisting the court in the case as amicus curiae.
The special forest bench of the Supreme Court had halted mining, acting on a petition of a local tribal organization, which alleged that exploitation of natural resources by Lafarge at Nongtrai was posing a threat to environment and changing rainfall pattern in the ecologically fragile area.
Nongtrai is in the vicinity of Cherrapunji, which once received maximum rainfall in the world and was known as the wettest place on earth. The Shella Joint Action Committee or SJAC, a local organisation, had filed a lawsuit alleging that rainfall in and around Nongtrai had drastically come down due to large-scale denudation of forest caused by limestone mining by Lafarge.
The Bangladesh government on March 2 last year had written to the Indian high commissioner in Dhaka expressing concern over Supreme Court's ban on halting of limestone mining and supply to the cement plant at Chhatak.
The Supreme Court's special forest bench now hearing the case comprises India's Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justices Aftab Alam and K S Radhakrishnan.
Appearing for the SJAC, senior advocate S Devan argued before the court last Friday that the Lafarge could not claim that it had no knowledge of any forest area in the mining area before embarking on the project.
Devan submitted that Lafarge's cement plant in Bangladesh was a huge project and required funding from international financial institutions.
Hence, the lawyer added, a Detailed Project Report must have been prepared and the report might have mentioned about the topography of the area where the limestone mining was proposed for supply of raw materials to the plant in Chhatak.
The court directed Lafarge to submit the DPR, which it had presented to the banks to get loans for the project. It also directed the Indian government to submit a copy of the approval granted for the mining project to Lum Mawshun Minerals Private Limited in June 1999.
The Lum Mawshun Minerals Private Limited had first got the clearance for the mining project from the forest department of the state government of Meghalaya. The clearance was transferred to the LUMPL in 2002.
But the clearance given to Lum Mawshun Minerals Limited came under doubt after the state government's Chief Conservator of Forest in 2007 noted that the mining project was located in the midst of natural and virgin forest.
If Indian SC does such thing that is because India needs them.
