Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA)

23 1. Partial Non-Feasibility of Auctioned Blocks Multiple auctioned blocks remained unoperationalised due to small but operationally critical overlaps with forest land, wildlife corridors, water bodies, habitations or linear infrastructure. In many cases, these constrained areas constituted only a minor share of the total mineralised area; however, the absence of regulatory flexibility resulted in entire projects being stalled. The earlier framework did not permit calibrated adjustments even where mining feasibility could otherwise have been preserved. 2. Administrative Fragmentation and Discretion Issuance of the Letter of Intent (LoI) and tracking of subsequent statutory clearances remained heavily dependent on State-level administrative actions. Even where successful bidders complied fully with procedural and financial requirements, delays occurred due to asymmetry in accountability: bidders were subject to strict timelines and penalties, while corresponding State-side actions lacked enforceable timeframes. This imbalance materially heightened execution and investment risk. 3. Weak Cost Signalling for Non-Forest Blocks Uniform provisions for lease execution extensions, irrespective of forest involvement, diluted urgency in blocks with relatively lower statutory complexity. In non-forest areas, where clearance intensity is limited, the absence of differentiated timelines and consequences weakened cost and time sensitivity, undermining the policy objective of rapid post-auction operationalisation. 4. Limited Incentivisation for Exploration-Led Development Restrictions on private exploration participation, coupled with auction premium requirements on low-value associated critical minerals, risked discouraging private investment in exploration. This constrained the development of smaller or geologically complex blocks and limited incentives for exploration-led discovery, particularly where commercial viability depended on scale or mineral association. Key Amendments And Their Rationale 1. Operational Flexibility through Conditional Exclusion of Non-Feasible Portions The provision permitting exclusion of up to 25% of estimated mineral resources where mining is demonstrably infeasible represents a pragmatic shift from rigid block integrity towards operational viability. By limiting exclusions to edge portions and prescribing a clear quantitative cap, the amendment balances regulatory flexibility with safeguards against strategic cherry picking. Likely effects: • Reduces post auction sunk risk for bidders • Prevents project deadlock arising from marginal constraints • Signals a move toward outcome-oriented regulation 2. Process Certainty through a Unified Mining Portal The establishment of a Unified Mining Portal, including automatic issuance of Letter of Intents upon receipt of upfront payment and/or performance security, forms the administrative backbone of the amendment. By embedding milestones within a system driven digital platform, the reform reduces discretionary administrative dependence and standardises post auction processes. Likely effects: • Curtails procedural variability across States • Introduces system-based accountability • Aligns mineral governance with broader digital public-governance reforms 3. Risk Adjusted Timelines for Forest and Non Forest Blocks Restricting the additional two year extension beyond the initial three year period exclusively to forest involved blocks recalibrates timelines in linewith underlying statutory risk. Likely effects: • Reinforces time discipline in low-risk non-forest blocks • Encourages realistic bidding behaviour • Discourages speculative lease holding 4. Strengthened Fiscal Discipline through Upfront Payment Rationalisation Mandating deposit of the second instalment of upfront payment within one year of LoI issuance