Telangana Cooperatives Act 2016

The Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 came in response to an understanding  in the state government, that the policy and legislative environment for investment sensitive, investor owned and controlled business was being increasingly opened, while usage-sensitive, user owned and controlled business continue to be very tightly controlled. In order for rural producers and others to engage with labour, financial, commodity markets effectively, it was understood that disadvantages communities needed a more liberal cooperative law.

However, the G.O.28 significantly takes away the spirit of autonomy available in the AP Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995. The G.O. assuming that cooperatives as “peoples” institutions – Cooperatives are not peoples’ organisations; they are their members’ institutions. The GO restores some of the key provisions to the department of cooperation (excluded in APMACS Act 1995) that have been used over decades to control cooperatives. These provisions include:

  1. The Government is competent authority to make provisions, from time to time, take necessary steps for making provisions with respect to the incorporation, regulation and winding up of co-operative societies based on the principle of voluntary formation, democratic member control, member economic participation and autonomous functioning as deemed necessary – which goes against the spirit of the right to form cooperatives. The bylaws of the cooperative could be compulsorily amended, again, even against the general body’s resolution to the contrary. Earlier this provision was almost always used to exempt the government or the registrar from fulfilling responsibility, such as the timely conduct of elections, audit.
  2. The powers given to the Registrar for registration and renewals which is against the spirit of the right to form cooperative. If Cooperatives are filing returns, it is the responsibility of registrar to verify and take measures at their level. Why do they go for renewal? The department as well as cooperatives would develop a vested interest.
  3. Admission of members and removal from membership and intimation to Registrar within 30 days: Government can make effort to ensure that the registrar would play its role in enable the cooperatives, and then regulate only where regulation was imperative. But keeping these types of provisions would undermine the functions and role of the management of cooperative societies.
  4. Size and term of the Board: The 1995 Act has sought, through this provision, to prevent to the extent possible, any vacuum in management, which has been experienced under the 1964 Act, to bring in the dreaded “Person-in-Charge” for the interregnum. By having less than half the directors retiring at any time, the 1995 Act has tried to ensure that there is always a quorum, and a democratically elected body is in position.
  5. Functional directors in the Board: Coopt persons as the functional directors to the Boards of cooperatives, and resolutions of the board could be annulled, if the nominated directors were uncomfortable with them. This means, all the cooperatives are in the hands of “professionals”. These people will have influence on decision making of the board without having membership responsibilities, ownership on the affairs of cooperative, accountability and liability of financial results of the cooperatives
  6. Conduct of elections: Based on experience, It is simply not possible for any third party to organize elections to all tiny and large cooperatives when their elections fall due.  It is also not possible for them to print ballot papers with specific symbols chosen by candidates of each cooperative – the result is that ballot papers are printed en mass; common election dates are fixed for similar type of cooperatives; the fixing of common dates requires the deliberate withholding of elections where those have become due, for ease of management by the external party; politicisation takes place as media and parties begin to get involved in the results of a large number of cooperatives going to elections on the same day. In fact, the cost of elections shoots up as centralized printing, security arrangements, TA/DA of officers, etc, are all to be borne by the cooperatives. Further, centralized elections reinforce the misconception that cooperatives are state agencies.
  7. It is responsibility of every cooperative society to conduct member education programs based on their activities, need and importance. What way TSCU is concerned about it. Who will bear the certification cost? Who is benefiting from this clause???
  8. All amendments to bye-laws require registration in this GO. The company law requires registration only to changes in the memorandum (which provides the ‘identify’ of a company). Amendments to articles only required filing of the amendment for record. This is why, in the 1995 Act, amendments to only key provisions were listed for registration- the rest were to be sent for taking on record only.
  9. Registrar’s role to fix the staffing pattern, qualifications, pay scales and other allowances to the employees of the society; this will undermine  functions & role of management. If registrar is involved, staff of cooperatives, feel more privileged in society than accountable to the cooperatives that they work with.
  10. Supersession of the Board and appoint the official Administrator(s) to manage the affairs of the society: Elections to cooperatives were not their own business – they are conducted by the registrar, under government fiat. Where other provisions had rendered the cooperative impotent in its business, provisions related to elections made the cooperative a potent political instrument in the hands of the party in governance, for accommodating party workers who could not be made legislators. Elections were withheld for years in most states, and often held under court directions.Elected boards could be superseded by the government/registrar on any  number of times either for serious or frivolous charges, based on ‘the opinion of the registrar’. In this case, restraining the board for not conducting elections on time as per their bye-laws is contradicting.
  11. Dissolution by Registrar: A  cooperative is a creature of its members, and, therefore, it provides for the members to choose not to continue their association with one another, to dissolve their cooperative.
  12. Settlement of disputes by registrar: If the registering authority is given the right to unilaterally dissolve a cooperative on any of these counts, as such right may lead to unhealthy practices.

In the 1995 Act, the approach was to ensure that the department would not develop a vested interest in cooperatives, even while it had some core corrective measures in its hands. The effort was to ensure that it would play the role of registration, and then regulate only where regulation was imperative, and that these functions would not be undermined by any management role.

Download

  1. 160601 Letter to Commissioner for Co-operation & Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Govt. of Telangana
  2. 2016AGLC_MS28

Delhi’s organic farming shocker: Data a load of manure

Mail Today Bureau   |   Mail Today  |   New Delhi, March 26, 2015 | UPDATED 06:03 IST

According to the state department, there is hardly any activity of organic farming on Delhi’s land . It claims it gets no subsidy for for organic farmers.Believe it or not, almost 70 per cent of the national Capital was used for organic farming in 2011-2012, according to National Project on Organic Farming (NPOF), which comes under the Ministry of Agriculture. While the total geographical area of Delhi is 1.48 lakh hectares, NPOF data shows 100238.74 hectares (almost twice the size of Mumbai) was used for organic farming during that period.

What smacks of data fudging and a gigantic scam took place between 2009 and 2012 when the Sheila Dikshit government was in power in Delhi and Congress-led UPA ruled at the Centre. As per the central government scheme, a subsidy of Rs.10,000 per hectare of land is given to a farmer for organic farming. Hence, Rs.100-crore plus subsidies in 2011-12 were given by the Union government for organic farming in the national Capital for 100238.74 hectares. And Delhi, on paper, produced 4,765 tonnes of organic products in 2009. The state of Assam produced 2,329 tonnes. In other words, urban Delhi’s output of organic products was 100 per cent higher than that of Assam. The scam was exposed by the Crop Care Foundation of India (CCFI) through an RTI.

When MAIL TODAY asked the Ministry of Agriculture if indeed such gigantic tract of land inside Delhi has been used for organic farming or if the national capital is such a big producer of organic vegetables, we got no answers. Neither did the Commerce Ministry which is in charge of export of organic products come up with any answers. Both ministries passed the buck and pointed fingers at each other.

The Delhi Agriculture department says there is hardly any organic farming done in Delhi. “There is no awareness about organic farming in Delhi. We don’t get any specific data on such farming from the government. Neither do we get any subsidy,” an official from the department told MAIL TODAY. Delhi agriculture department records show 30,922 hectares of land were used for overall agricultural activities in Delhi in 2011-12. Agriculture activity in Delhi takes place only on six blocks, out of which there is negligible farming in 50 per cent of the area. NPOF was introduced by the Congress-led UPA government during the 10th five-year plan as a central sector scheme with effect from 10 October, 2004, with an initial outlay of `57 crore for promotion of organic farming in India. Though introduced by the UPA government, the scheme continues till date with substantially enhanced budget.

Dr Krishan Chandra, Regional Director, National Center for Organic Farming (NCOF), Ministry of Agriculture, said: “Agriculture is a state subject. The Centre’s role is to help states monetarily so that they can take up organic farming. We have different schemes through which we help farmers by providing money to states. But there is no scope of organic farming in Delhi as there is meagre land available for any kind of farming. As far as subsidy is concerned, we give subsidy for the export of organic produce.” According to the data available with the Ministry of Agriculture, the annual export value of Agriorganic products for 2012-13 was Rs.1155.81 crore.

Dr Chandra said that on noticing major glitch in the data provided by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), under the Ministry of Commerce, regarding organic farming in Delhi, he asked them for clarification.

“The data regarding land for organic farming is maintained by APEDA and not by our department. They said that earlier they used to enter the data manually but now they are doing it using computers. There may be some data manipulation as it is not possible to carry out such large-scale organic farming in Delhi,” said Chandra. “At times the state helps the farmer financially to carry out organic farming. Farmers furnish address details of the national capital, but the land is somewhere else. The responsibility to check such details furnished by farmers lies with the Commerce Ministry,” he said. Sources in the Agriculture Ministry said that there is a possibility of embezzlement of funds at the state level because who the beneficiaries would be are decided by the state.

The state agriculture department claims to have no information on organic farming in Delhi. “We don’t have any information,” said Kaushal Kishore, joint director, agriculture, Development department, Delhi government. Rajinder Chaudhry, Director (Media), Ministry of Commerce, said: “We are not aware about the disparity in data from other sources. The data provided by APEDA is sourced from TRACENET – a web-based traceability system operational under NPOP.”

రాజధాని కి ముప్పై వేల ఎకరాలు అవసరమా?

land grab

హర్ష గజ్జారపు

a) ప్రపంచ అతి పెద్ద ప్రజాస్వామ్యం చిహ్నమయిన ‘భారతీయ ప్రలమెంటరీ భవనం’ కేవలం 9.8 ఎకరాల మొత్తం ప్రాంగణంలో కేవలం 6 ఎకరాలలో నిర్మించబడింది.
b) అగ్రరాజ్యం అమెరికాలోని ‘వైట్ హౌస్’ కుడా కేవలం 18 ఎకరాలలో నిర్మించబడింది.
c) హైదరాబాద్ లోని అసెంబ్లీ, సెక్రటేరియట్, MLA క్వాటర్ మరయు ఇతర అభికారుల భవానాలు అన్ని కలిపి కేవలం 250 ఎకరాలలో నిర్మించబడ్డాయి.

వీటినిబట్టి, కొత్త రాజధాని నిర్మాణానికి అసలు “30,000 ఎకరాల భూమి” ఎందుకుకావాలి..??

30,000 ఎకారాలంటే, సుమారు 121 చదరపు కిలోమీటర్ల విస్తీర్ణత.
బెంగుళూరు లోని విధాన్ సౌధా, MLA క్వాటర్ మరయు రాజ్ భవన్ అన్ని కలిపి కేవలం 1.5 చదరపు కిలోమీటర్ల విస్తీర్ణతలో నిర్మించబడ్డాయి.
మరి, కొత్త రాజదానికి 30,000 ఎకారాలు (121 చదరపు కిలోమీటర్ల విస్తీర్ణత) భూములు అవసరమా.??

30,000 ఎకారాలు (121 చదరపు కిలోమీటర్ల విస్తీర్ణత) అంటే, అది విజయవాడ-గుంటూరు రెండు నగరాలను కలపగా వచ్చే విస్తీర్ణత కంటే ఎక్కువ!
దేనికోసం అంత భూమి.??

దానికి తోడు, ఆ పొలాల్లో నాలుగు పంటలు పండుతాయి.
ఆ భూముల్లో 20 అడుగుల్లోనే నీరు ఉంటుంది.
ఐదేళ్లుగా వర్షం పడకపోయినా, ఆ భూముల్లో బంగారం లాంటి పంటలు పండుతున్నాయి.

ఇటువంటి అమూల్యమైన వ్యవసాయ భూములను, రైతులనుండి లాక్కొని, వారికి నష్టం కలిగించేలా, వారి జీవనోపాధి దూరంచీసి, వారి భూములను రియల్ ఎస్టేట్ వ్యాపార-బిల్డర్లకు కట్టబెట్టడం, ‘ధర్మమా’..??

https://www.facebook.com/harshagajjarapu/photos/a.239939709527493.1073741827.239855182869279/294654480722682/?type=1&comment_id=294703450717785&reply_comment_id=294828367371960&offset=0&total_comments=15&notif_t=photo_comment_tagged

హామీ…మాఫీ

మోహన్ రుషి

ముఖ్యమంత్రిగా చంద్రబాబు అధికారం చేపట్టి ఐదు నెలలు పూర్తయింది. కానీ గెలవగానే తొలి సంతకం చేస్తానంటూ ఎన్నికల్లో ఆయనిచ్చిన హామీ మాత్రం ఇప్పటికీ నెరవేరలేదు. తమ పార్టీ గెలిస్తే రైతు రుణాలన్నీ మాఫీ చేస్తానని, తొలి సంతకం ఆ ఫైలుపైనే అని చెప్పిన చంద్రబాబు చేసిందేంటో తెలుసా? రుణ మాఫీ ఎలా చేయాలో చెప్పండంటూ ఓ కమిటీని మాత్రం వేశారు. ఆ తరవాత మాఫీపై ఎన్ని మాయదారి ఫీట్లు వేశారో తెలుసా? అడుగడుగునా ఆంక్షలు విధించారు.
సాధ్యమైనంత ఎక్కువ మంది రైతులకు ప్రయోజనం కల్పించాల్సిన ముఖ్యమంత్రి… వీలైనంత ఎక్కువ మందిని ఈ మాఫీ పరిధి నుంచి తప్పించడానికి బోలెడంత కసరత్తు చేశారు. ఆ ఫీట్ల ఫలితమేంటో తెలుసా? రైతులకు ఇప్పటికీ ఒక్క రూపాయి మాఫీ కాలేదు. సరికదా… రాష్ట్రంలోని రైతులు, డ్వాక్రా మహిళలపై ఇప్పటికి దాదాపు 17,500 కోట్ల వడ్డీ భారం (16 నెలలకు) పడింది. రుణ మాఫీ విషయంలో ఏపీ సీఎం చంద్రబాబు మాయదారి ఫీట్ల తీరుతెన్నులు మీరే చూడండి…
బాబు ఏ సందర్భంలో ఏం చెప్పారో… తరవాత ఆ మాట ఎలా తప్పారో ఒక్కసారి చూస్తే…
►రైతులు, డ్వాక్రా మహిళల రుణాలన్నింటినీ మాఫీ చేస్తామని ఎన్నికల ముందు హామీ ఇచ్చారు. టీడీపీ ఎన్నికల ప్రణాళికలో కూడా ఇదే హామీని పొందు పరిచారు. ళీ ముఖ్యమంత్రిగా ప్రమాణం చేసిన వేదికపై రుణాలు మాఫీ చేస్తూ సంతకం పెట్టలేదు. రుణాల మాఫీ విధివిధానాల ఖరారు కోసం కోటయ్య కమిటీని ఏర్పాటు చేస్తూ ఆ ఫైలుపై సంతకం చేశారు.
►కోటయ్య కమిటీ నివేదిక ఇవ్వక ముందే మంత్రులు మాట్లాడుతూ.. రుణ మాఫీకి ఆధార్ లింక్ పెడతామన్నారు. ఆ తర్వాత లక్ష రూపాయల వరకే మాఫీ అన్నారు. మరోసారి లక్షన్నర వరకు మాఫీ అన్నారు. మరో మంత్రి బంగారంపై తీసుకున్న రుణాల మాఫీ సాధ్యం కాదని చెప్పేశారు.
►ఇక ముఖ్యమంత్రి జూన్ 22న కోటయ్య కమిటీతో నిర్వహించిన సమీక్షలో ‘రుణ మాఫీ తర్వాత చూద్దాం. ప్రస్తుతానికి గత ఖరీఫ్‌లో కరువు, తుపాను ప్రభావిత 575 మండలాల్లో రైతుల రుణాలను రీ షెడ్యూల్ చేయిద్దాం.
►ఆర్‌బీఐ గవర్నర్‌తో మాట్లాడండి..’ అంటూ ఆదేశించారు. ళీ జూన్ 29న రాష్ట్ర స్థాయి బ్యాంకర్ల కమిటీ సమావేశంలో వ్యవసాయ రుణాలు రూ.87,612 వేల కోట్లు, మహిళా సంఘాల రుణాలు రూ.14,204 వేల కోట్లు ఉన్నట్లు తేల్చారు. ళీ ఆర్‌బీఐ ఎగ్జిక్యూటివ్ డెరైక్టర్ రాష్ట్ర ప్రభుత్వానికి లేఖ రాస్తూ రైతు రుణ బకాయిలను రాష్ట్ర ప్రభుత్వం ఒకేసారి బ్యాంకులకు చెల్లిస్తే రుణ మాఫీకి అభ్యంతరం లేదన్నారు.
►కోటయ్య కమిటీ ఆర్‌బీఐతో రుణాల రీ షెడ్యూల్‌పై జరిపిన చ ర్చలు విఫలం అయ్యాయి. ఆర్‌బీఐ కేవలం నాలుగు జిల్లాల్లో 120 మండలాల్లోని పంట రుణాల రీ షెడ్యూల్‌కే అనుమతించింది.
►జూలై 21న కోటయ్య కమిటీ ముఖ్యమంత్రికి నివేదిక అందజేసింది. అదేరోజు చంద్రబాబు విలేకరులతో మాట్లాడుతూ ఈ ఏడాది మార్చి నెలాఖరు వరకు ఉన్న వ్యవసాయ రుణాలను మాఫీ చేస్తామని ప్రకటించారు. ఒక్కో కుటుంబానికి లక్షన్నర వరకు మాఫీ చేస్తామన్నారు. డ్వాక్రా సంఘాలకు మాఫీ చేయబోమని, మూల ధన సాయంగా ఒక్కో సంఘానికి లక్ష రూపాయల వరకు ఇస్తామని చెప్పారు.
►ఆగస్టు 14న మాఫీకి పలు ఆంక్షలు విధిస్తూ ఆర్థిక శాఖ మార్గదర్శకాలను జారీ చేసింది. గత ఏడాది డిసెంబర్ 31వ తేదీ వరకు తీసుకున్న పంట రుణాలు, బంగారం కుదవ పెట్టి తీసుకున్న వ్యవసాయ రుణాలు, ఆ రుణాలపై ఈ ఏడాది మార్చి వరకు అయ్యే వడ్డీ కలిపి ఒక్కో కుంటుంబానికి లక్షన్నర వరకు మాఫీ పరిధిలోకి వస్తాయని అందులో పేర్కొన్నారు.
►ఆర్థిక శాఖ తొలి మార్గదర్శకాలను సవరిస్తూ ఈ నెల 1న మరో జీవో జారీ అరుుంది. దాన్లోనూ గత ఏడాది డిసెంబర్ 31వ తేదీ వరకు తీసుకున్న రుణాలకు, అప్పటిదాకా వడ్డీకి మాత్రమే మాఫీ అంటూ వడ్డీలోనూ కోత పెట్టారు.
►23 అంశాలతో రూపొందించిన నమూనా పత్రంలో బ్యాంకులు రైతుల ఖాతాల వివరాలను రాష్ట్ర ప్రభుత్వం రూపొందించిన ప్రత్యేక వెబ్‌సైట్‌కు అందజేయాలని పేర్కొన్నారు. ఆ గడువు ఈ నెల 1తో ముగిసింది. చివరకు బ్యాంకులు చచ్చీచెడీ మొత్తం డేటాను అందజేసినా… మాఫీకి అర్హులైన వారి జాబితాను ఇంకా ప్రకటించలేదు

“Stop Pesticide Poisonings – A time travel through international pesticide policies”

The popular PAN Germany publication

“Stop Pesticide Poisonings – A time travel through international pesticide policies”

is now available as an updated, extended and newly layouted edition at:
http://www.pan-germany.org/download/stop_pesticide_poisonings_141002.pdf

Issue Food security cards & Old age pensions

2014 telangana social security download

Telangana government has issued a GO  giving guidelines to identify the beneficiaries and remove ineligible persons/families.

some of the series issues are

1. only one person will be given the old age pension in a family

2. the survey will use the ‘samagra kutumba survey’ data and will be cross checked.

3. ineligibility criteria: land more than 2.5 acres wet/5.0 acre dryland, employees, verification officer’s assessment by estimating the life style of the person,

4. widow pensions only if there is a death certificate of the spouse

5. disability pension only to those who have a SADAREM certificate showing more than 40% disability

 

 

New Land Acquisition Act – Rules for Social Impact Assessments and Consent Provisions Notified (Relative Progressive Rules – Can also be a useful guide for EIA Processes)

New Land Acquisition Act – Rules for Social Impact Assessments and Consent Provisions Notified (Relative Progressive Rules – Can also be a useful guide for EIA Processes)

 

The NDA government – amidst speculations that it is set to dilute important provisions of the new land acquisition act – has recently notified the Rules for two of its most important and progressive sections, those pertaining to the Social Impact Assessments and the Consent provisions. These Rules, notified on 8th Aug 2014 detail out how to implement these two provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which is the full and formal name of the new Land Acquisition Act( referred to hereinafter as Act).

Overall, these Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) Rules, 2014 (Rules hereinafter) provide a relatively progressive framework of implementation.

Provisions for Social Impact Assessment

There are some significant provisions for carrying out the SIA. First and foremost, the Rules require that the SIA be carried out in consultation with the local self-government institutions in the affected area. This provision is also there in Act.

The Rules require the state or the central government to establish a Social Impact Assessment Unit, “an independent organisation which shall be responsible for ensuring that Social Impact Assessments are commissioned and conducted by such person or bodies other than the Requiring Body as per the provisions of the Act”. (Emphasis added). This is a critical provision for maintaining the credibility of the SIA. Here, a lesson seems to have been learnt from the problems with the Environment Impact Assessments (EIA) process, where the project proponent selects, commissions and pays the agency that carries out the EIA. This creates a direct conflict of interest, and it’s not surprising that most EIAs are highly biased towards the project proponent’s interests.

The Rules empower the SIA Unit to formulate the Terms of References for any SIA proposal, list the activities required, decide the size and profile of the team required, and prepare the costs estimates for the same. Then, the Requiring Body (the agency that wants the land) will deposit the money with the Government, and the SIA Unit will select the agency to carry out the assessment from the roster that it maintains.

To further ensure a distance between the Requiring Body and the SIA team, the Rules explicitly state that the Requiring Body shall not be involved in any way in the appointment of the SIA agency, and that it should be ensured that there is no conflict of interest involving the team members of the SIA agency.

The Rules allow the SIA team to include independent practitioners, academics, qualified social activists, and mandate the inclusion of at least one woman member.

The SIA Unit is also tasked with building and “continuously expand a Database of Qualified Social Impact Assessment Resource Partners and Practitioners”, “conduct training and capacity building programmes for the Social Impact Assessment team and community surveyors”, and “continuously review, evaluate and strengthen the quality of Social Impact Assessments and the capacities available to conduct them”.

Apart from giving a detailed list of the aspects that the SIA must cover, which include all direct and indirect impacts, the Rules also require the SIA to “assess the viability of impact mitigation”. This is critical because often, the mitigation measures are just listed out as a lip service and the project cleared on this basis, but the affected people suffer because it is practically impossible to carry out the measure effectively particularly when the displacement involves large numbers.

In this context, it is also important that the Rules require the SIA to “provide an assessment as to whether the benefits from the proposed project exceed the social costs and adverse social impacts that are likely to be experienced by the affected families or even after the proposed mitigation measures, the affected families remained at risk of being economically or socially worse, as a result of the said land acquisition and resettlement”.

There are several other important provisions including the time period for the SIA (six months), recording the views of the affected families in writing, involving local voluntary organisations and media in the public hearings, recording and considering in the SIA every objection raised in the public hearings, the SIA and public hearings to be in local language and a web-based flow management information system of the acquisition process.

The Consent Provision

The Consent related Rules specify that the Consent process shall be carried out by the Government, through the District Collector. The consent would be obtained (where required by the Act) at two levels – the Gram Sabha level and for the private and public-private partnership projects, at the individual land owner levels.

For getting the consent from the Gram Sabha, the quorum requirements not only ask for 50% of the total members to be present, but also require that one third of total women members also to be present.

The Rules specify that negotiated terms for rehabilitation, compensation, impact management and mitigation which the Requiring Body has agreed to, shall form a part and parcel of the Consent Agreements. This means that the Consent is given only against these commitments.

It also declares that any attempt to coerce or threaten anyone into giving consent shall be treated as a criminal offence, and most important, if any such threat has been made, the consent so given shall be void.

Two Caveats

Of course, these Rules cannot and do not transcend the fundamental problems with the original Act itself (see here  for a detailed account of these), but within that limitation, provide a much better process than has been available earlier for project affected people.

Second, it’s a question as to whether and how long these Rules will survive, as the very provisions that these Rules help actualise are the ones that the Central Government seems to want to do away with. However, till such an eventuality, these Rules will be the ones that will provide the framework for implementation of the Act.

A Lesson for the MoEF

All in all, even with several limitations, these Rules provide a process of SIA that is miles ahead of all earlier processes. Indeed, at this time, the Ministry of Environment and Forest is examining all the environment protection laws, and it could do well to adapt all these provisions of the SIA for the EIA process too.

22 September 2014

The Rules can be downloaded from http://dolr.nic.in/dolr/downloads/pdfs/RFCTLARR%20%28SIA%20and%20Consent%29%20Rules%202014.pdf