Goa Foundation, an NGO on whose plea the Supreme Court ordered closure of 88 mining leases in the state, filed a complaint with Lokayukta today against former Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar and two government officials, accusing them of abuse of power and conspiracy.
The complaint lodged this afternoon says that Parsekar, former Mines Secretary Pawan Kumar Sain and current Director of Mines and Geology Department Prasanna Acharya entered into “an unholy conspiracy” to renew 88 mining leases to several persons in Goa”.
In his complaint, Claud Alvares, alleged that these renewals appear to be a result of “corrupt acts”.
The complaint urged the Lokayukta to probe the “circumstances that led to the en masse second renewal of 88 mining leases in Goa to various private stakeholders (lease holders), including one multinational corporation from November 1, 2014 to January 12, 2015 through flagrant abuse of power and conspiracy by the persons listed as respondents in this complaint”.
The complaint added that the second renewals were done illegally to benefit these private persons and companies.
“As a result of these renewals, they benefited by operating the mining leases allocated for nearly three years from 2015 to 2018, till the intervention of the Supreme Court of India, which set aside all these illegal renewals,” it said.
“By these orders, vast public monies were handed over as largesse to private individuals and companies for extraneous considerations outside the purview of the MMDR Act,” the complaint mentions.
The NGO has said that all the three accused be charged under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the act of renewing these 88 mining leases for mining in Goa with a total annual production capacity of 44 million tonnes and consequences therefrom.
The NGO has also said that the renewals also resulted in colossal losses to the public exchequer as they temporarily halted the recovery process worth Rs 65,058 crore and were therefore completely against public interest.
They were carried out in wilful violation of the provisions laid down in the MMDR (Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation) Act, Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and the two Supreme Court’s judgements.
“The actions, taken jointly and severally, attract Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA),” it added.