Cavrem Cooperative society rejected on technical grounds in June 2015
Story: THE | GOAN | 19th April 2016, 12:00 Hrs
WHAT WENT AGAINST VELIP
* He has not shown any income from mining in the column of projected income of his application form
* He has instead shown income from “marketing” which the assistant registrar said is “misleading”
* Assistant registrar received a representation requesting no multipurpose cooperative society be formed
* Maina villagers wished to form their own cooperative society “for overall development of the village”
MINES DIRECTOR SEEKS
TO ALLAY FEARS OF
ILLEGAL MINING >> pg 3
PANAJI: The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies had rejected the registration of the Sadhana Multipurpose Cooperative Society after the registrar failed to give administrative approval because it failed to register members from the Maina part of the village, its projected income and expenditure figures were doubtful and because of opposition from villagers from Maina to the setting up of the cooperative.
The order was passed in June last year, but came into the limelight in view of the recent agitation by a section of the villagers of Cavrem.
Ravindra Velip, the chief promoter of the cooperative society had earlier in October 2014 rejected the proposal to register the cooperative society on grounds that it would not be economically viable.
Velip however, initially approached the High Court but withdrew his petition and instead filed a petition before the cooperative tribunal at Panjim which ordered the assistant registrar of cooperative societies (Quepem zone) to give him a personal hearing and pass a verbal order on his plea to have a cooperative society registered.
Among the objectives of the Society is the aim to “engage in mining activity, operating the mining leases, employing persons and equipment for the mining activities, transportation, processing, beneficiation, use sale and export of the ore, to take part in auctions and other government processes related to mining, to ensure that the mining affected people are compensated adequately, and that all mining affected lands and waters are rehabilitated and restored.” This “without prejudice to their other stated objectives” which include agricultural activities, irrigation, forestry, social activities, etc.
“It is observed that the chief promoter of (the) proposed society has not produced as any documentary evidence from the mine owner or government agencies that they will [be] allowed to extract ore from the mine either by the government or private mine owners or to take lease (sic). Under such circumstances it is doubtful that the proposed objective materialise… the society would collapse,” the assistant registrar said.
The registrar also noted that Velip has not shown any income from mining in the column of projected income of his application form, but has instead shown income from “marketing” which the assistant registrar has said is “misleading”.
“Income derived from mining activities has not been shown. It is pertinent to note that the whole objective of the society is entirely depended on mining as listed,” he said in his order.
What also went against Velip is the fact that the assistant registrar received a representation signed by 37 members from Maina part of the village requesting that no multipurpose cooperative society be formed to include Maina village since they wish to form their own cooperative society “for overall development of the village.” On the above grounds, the assistant registrar refused to register the cooperative society.