A heated debate erupted in the Karnataka Legislative Council this week. The focus was on alleged unpaid mining dues and unauthorized quarry operations. The Adani Group’s ACC Limited found itself at the center of this political storm.
Congress MLC K Shivakumar raised the issue during Question Hour. He was speaking on behalf of his party colleague, MLC Arathi Krishna. They alleged substantial royalty dues remained unpaid while mining continued.
Krishna’s written question sought clarity on a critical point. She asked if the government knew the mining lease for the Kannur Limestone Block had expired. She demanded to know what action was taken against ACC for allegedly operating without authorization.
The alleged unpaid dues are staggering, totaling Rs 850.21 crore. This amount is owed to the state government for royalty, rent, and penalties. The question highlighted a significant potential loss of public revenue.
Shivakumar presented a sharp contrast in enforcement. He pointed out that small quarry operators face immediate seizure for non-payment. Large corporate entities, however, appear to operate under different rules.
He directly questioned the government’s motives. “What prompted you to exempt them from this royalty?” he asked. The implication was one of preferential treatment for a powerful industrial group.
BJP MLC C T Ravi echoed these concerns from the opposition benches. He questioned the legal basis for allowing ACC to participate in bidding. He asked which rules permit operations despite massive pending dues.
Ravi also sought details on internal government recommendations. He referenced opinions from the High-Level Committee, Law Department, and Finance Department. The demand was for transparency in the decision-making process.
Minister N Cheluvarayaswamy provided the government’s response. He stated that no fresh licence had been granted to the company. He clarified the situation involved an old lease and a separate new application.
The minister explained the core issue is sub judice. The matter of the dues is currently pending before a court. The court has allowed operations to continue under specific conditions for now.
“We are following court direction,” the Minister asserted. He noted that a part payment had been made by the company. The balance would be determined through the ongoing legal proceedings.
Opposition members remained deeply unsatisfied with this explanation. Ravi argued that a court case does not prevent the government from initiating recovery. He pressed the minister on why no recovery effort had been made.
Shivakumar shifted the argument to the state’s financial health. He cited declining non-tax revenue from the mining sector. Letting Rs 800-900 crore slip away severely impacts the state’s budget, he argued.
The Minister reiterated the challenge of recovering a disputed amount. “How can we recover when the amount itself is not decided?” he asked. He promised consultations with legal authorities to explore further action.
He also cited the relevant tender conditions. The notification clearly states a company must have paid all past dues to be a successful bidder. This point seemed to contradict the current situation.
The session ended with the opposition’s demand for action still ringing. Ravi insisted the recovery of dues must be pursued with urgency. The debate underscored deep concerns over governance and revenue collection.