Legal Data by
October 15, 2016
October 15, 2016
October 15, 2016
The residents of Rasuli village, in Kanker district's Durg Kondal tehsil, had long opposed the Rasuli Iron Ore Deposit Mining project. The state government awarded the lease for mining to Navbharat Fuse Company Limited in 2009. For the project, 220 hectares of reserved forestland were demarcated in compartment numbers 338(615) and 339 (616) in Khargaon forest, a protected area. On September 7, 2016, the Chhattisgarh Environment Protection Division organised a public hearing to attain consent at the Janpad panchayat office in Bhanupratappur. According to news reports, the residents accused the authorities of not providing them with prior information about the hearing and organising it in a venue located far from the affected village. Reportedly, the few villagers and local political leaders who did attend the meeting utilised the platform to voice their concerns about the impact the project would have on the forest resources, tree cover, biodiversity and soil and water quality in the area. They raised concerns over the effect of mining activities on their agriculture and other livelihood practices. Additionally, they demanded that the administration should reorganise the public hearing in the affected tribal village. Following the protests, Vipin Manjhi, an additional collector from Kanker, agreed to cancel and postpone the public hearing. During a meeting held on December 20, 2017, the Forest Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) decided to recommend against the forest clearance for the Rasuli iron ore mine as the proposed mining site falls in the very dense area of the Bailadila mountain range. The committee also added that the felling of trees would adversely impact the environment in the region by affecting the water supply as the catchment area of the local drain is located there. As per a notification issued on January 05, 2017, the MoEFCC had also recommended against granting approval to the project under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. According to the MoEFCC website, the environmental clearance proposal for the project was delisted on January 16, 2018.
Complaint against procedural violations
Opposition against environmental degradation
Total investment involved (in Crores):
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Page Number In Investment Document:
Has the Conflict Ended?
When did it end?
Why did the conflict end?
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Forest and Scheduled Area Governance Laws, Environmental Laws, Other
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Non-implementation/violation of FRA
Non-implmentation/violation of PESA
Violation of free prior informed consent
Violation of environmental laws
Out of Court
Status of Case In Court
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
Date of Violation
Location of Violation
Nature of Protest
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Government of Chhattisgarh
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Navbharat Fuse Company Limited
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict: