Bhubaneswar: The BJP on Friday hit back at the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) over the recent amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, or MMDR Act, rejecting allegations that the changes would weaken the powers of states or cause revenue losses to Odisha.

Addressing a press conference, former Rajya Sabha MP and BJP leader Amar Patnaik said the main objective of the amendment was to bring uniformity in mining-related rules across states. He said claims that the amendment has taken away the powers of state governments were misleading.

According to Patnaik, states would continue to have the power to impose taxes, but within specified conditions and limits. He said the earlier system did not clearly prescribe uniform limits on how much or when states could impose such taxes, leading to differences across states.

"If different states impose different taxes, the mining industry cannot remain sustainable," Patnaik said, arguing that excessive taxation could increase the burden on mining companies and discourage investment.

He claimed that the amendment would instead benefit the mining sector by creating a more predictable regulatory environment and attracting greater investment. Citing research, Patnaik claimed that the changes could increase revenue by around 40 per cent.

Rejecting the BJD's claim that Odisha could have received around Rs 12,000 crore but would now suffer a loss, Patnaik said there would be no reduction in the state's existing revenue from mining royalty and the District Mineral Foundation (DMF). He claimed that 90 per cent of DMF funds would continue to come to Odisha.

Patnaik also targeted the previous BJD government over the utilisation of DMF funds, citing observations in the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report. He alleged that large-scale irregularities had taken place in the use of DMF funds and money meant for specific areas and purposes had been spent elsewhere in violation of rules.

The BJP leader also questioned the BJD's criticism of the MMDR amendments, pointing to changes made to the mining law in 2015. He said amendments to Sections 10B and 11 introduced the e-auction system for mining blocks.

Before the introduction of e-auctions, Patnaik alleged, mining blocks were allocated without adequate transparency. He referred to earlier findings of the CAG and the Shah Commission, which had estimated losses of around Rs 60,000 crore and Rs 59,000 crore respectively in Odisha's mining sector. He also said the Shah Commission had recommended a CBI investigation.

Patnaik claimed that the introduction of the e-auction system in 2015 resulted in a sharp rise in Odisha's mining revenue. According to him, mining revenue increased from around Rs 3,300 crore to Rs 53,000 crore, representing an 861 per cent increase.

He accused the BJD, which governed Odisha for 24 years, of creating "misleading and confusing" narratives over the MMDR amendments.

The BJP leader further said the MMDR Act is a central law, and any changes to it are made by the Union government. He argued that the amendments would bring long-term benefits to Odisha by improving transparency, encouraging investment and strengthening the mining sector.

He alleged that the previous government had failed to undertake adequate measures for the long-term development of the mining sector and instead treated it as a source of revenue.

Patnaik maintained that the amendment would not take away the constitutional powers of the state government. He said Odisha's share of mining royalty and DMF revenue would remain protected.

"Instead of focusing only on tax collection, the priority should be to strengthen the economy, create employment and attract investment," Patnaik said, adding that reforms introduced under Prime Minister Narendra Modi have brought greater transparency and improvement to the mining sector.

Replying to Patnaik's statement, BJD spokesperson Dr Lenin Mohanty rejected the contention made by him in favour of the MMDR Amendment Act, terming it as "baseless and anti-Odisha".

Mohanty pointed out the argument given by AG, Odisha, in front of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court and said Patnaik has a habit of party hopping and he is advocating for the Act to get some benefit. He also challenged Patnaik to show evidence for his argument.