Following are the main objections raised by the states Orissa, Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh, Rajasthan, and Karnataka, as reported in various news papers. We give excerpts from the Economic Times report.

(i) The main objection of mineral-rich states pertains to control and use of iron ore resources. The state governments want it should be within their rights to offer minerals to companies that propose to set up steel industry within the states.

(ii) The final draft of the National Mineral Policy has said while states could have a system of preference for grant of mineral licences, they could not deny movement of minerals outside the states. “The amendments in Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act) should clarify this position,” a Orissa government source said.

(iii) The states are also against the provision in the policy that aims to curb their powers in case there is a delay in the grant of mineral lease to an applicant. It has also been suggested that existing provisions of the MMDR Act, which give states special powers in grant of mining leases, should be retained.

(iv) The states have also objected to continuation of iron ore exports and said there was no point in giving captive iron ore mines to companies having steel plants located in other states. The policy has said captive mines would be offered to steel companies on the basis of their existing capacities as in July 2006.

It has been reported that when the chief ministers of these states went to meet the GOM head Mr. Patil, he did not even show them the draft. This is contrary to the earlier report which mentioned that Mr. Patil would discuss the draft and get the consent from the chief ministers. How can one get a consent from a group on a draft without even showing the group what the draft contains?