Nusantara Coal appreciates Samarinda administrative court decision
Thursday, May 19 2011 - 02:49 AM WIB
Nusantara Group recently made a statement that the PTUN ruling, which was publicly announced on March 3, 2011, has been examined and judged based on the applied laws and regulations in Indonesia, and is in accordance with the facts revealed in the PTUN court hearings.
?We have come to the decision that it should be as it is. We don?t want to create opinions here. We just want to reveal the facts,? said Anthony LP Hutapea, the legal representative of Nusantara Group, told Petromindo.Com recently.
Anthony said Nusantara Group filed a legal procedure called ?Intervention? in the legal term, around October 2010, after Ridlatama Group filed the charges against East Kutai Regent on August 25, 2010, on the regent?s decision to revoke exploitation IUPs of four subsidiary companies of Ridlatama Group.
Nusantara made the intervention because the company group has a significant interest on the disputed area as it is located in three out of the six concession areas of Nusantara Group.
?Nusantara Group got there first (in the disputed area),? Anthony said. Nusantara obtained the exploration IUPs from the government in 2005, while Ridlatama Group obtained the license later in 2008.
The three concession areas of Nusantara Group are legally owned by its three subsidiary companies; PT Nusantara Wahau Coal, located in around 15,300 hectare area in Busang sub-district, East Kutai regency, PT Kaltim Nusantara Coal located in some 10,000 hectare area in Busang and Telen sub-districts in East Kutai regency, and PT Batubara Nusantara Kaltim located in around 10,000 hectare area in Busang sub-district, East Kutai regency.
Anthony said the status of the three concession areas are currently in exploration stages. ?We have obtained the technical review from the Directorate General Mineral and Coal to be used as the reference for the Ministry of Forestry to issue the land-use permit on the protected forest area for Nusantara Group.
?The development of the three mining concessions has been a bit slow because some of its are located in protected forest. We have to follow the required procedure. We have to first obtain the land-use permit issued by the Ministry of Forestry,? he explained.
His client expects that with the PTUN court decision, they can comfortably start the development of the areas. ?At the moment, the local government has already cleared up the mining areas, and heavy-duty equipment of Ridlatama Group is no longer there,? Anthony said.
He said the PTUN decision is valid and is already in effect. The State Administrative Court (PTUN) decision is a written decision issued by the state administrative institutions or officials, confirming the state administrative court?s legal proceedings based on the applied laws and regulations, with constructive, individual, and final characteristics, which bring about legal consequences on individuals or corporate institutions, Anthony said.
The regent?s decree, however, is not mainly based on the overlapping locations of concession areas of Nusantara and Ridlatama Groups, he added but it is mainly based on reports and inventions of the special team at the Inspectorate General office of the Ministry of Forestry, filed in March 2010. Based on the reports, the Ministry of Forestry sent a letter No. 10/Menhut/III/Rhs/2010, dated on April 21, 2010, to the East Kutai regent requesting the East Kutai authorities to revoke the exploration IUP of four subsidiary companies under Ridlatama Group for conducting general investigations and explorations in the protected forest area.
Besides that, all miners who already obtain exploitation IUP for areas in protected forests should report the development on the land-use permit to the East Kutai authorities before extending or upgrading their IUP status.
The regent has the right to revoke the IUP if the holders violate the laws and regulations including those stipulated in the mining areas, or if they refuse to meet requirements stated in the IUP.
Ridlatama Group has currently filed an appeal to the higher State Administrative Court (PTUN) in Jakarta against the decision of the lower PTUN court in Samarinda.
?We just welcome Ridlatama?s court appeal. No problem with that. It?s legal. We?ll just be ready,? he said.
In the PTUN court decision observed by Petromindo.Com, it is stated that Ridlatama Group, through its subsidiary company PT Investama Resources (IR) filed the charges on August 25, 2010, against the decree issued by East Kutai Regent No. 540.1/K.441/HK/2010, on May 4, 2010, on the revocation of exploitation IUP license owned by PT Investama Resources.
At the same time, Ridlatama Group through its three subsidiary companies PT Investmine Nusa Persada (INP), PT Ridlatama Trade Powerindo (RTP) and PT Ridlatama Tambang Mineral (RTM) also filed three charges against East Kutai Regent No.540.1/K.442/HK/V/2010; No.540.1/K.444/HK/V/2010, and No.540.1/K.443/HK/V/2010, on May 4, 2010, on the regent?s decree to revoke the exploitation IUPs of the mining companies INP, RTP and RTM respectively.
The four mining companies? concession mines are mostly located in Busang and partly in Telen sub-districts, East Kutai regency, East Kalimantan.
In its claim, Ridlatama has stated that East Kutai regent?s decree is in contradiction with the Law No. 4 of 2009 on Mineral and Coal. It is not in observance with the required procedure and the regent has exceeded his authority.
On the revocation of the permits, the plaintiff claims East Kutai regent did not follow the required procedure, as there should be written notification, summon, and forewarning to Ridlatama Group, prior to the issuance of the revocation notice. Ridlatama claims they should have been given a chance to defend their interests.
East Kutai Regent stated in his reply that the East Kutai regency?s Regional Ordinance No. 13 of 2004 on the local IUP, and the article No. 20 paragraph (1) letter c of the ordinance stipulates that the IUPs would be cancelled after the revocation by a regent and/or other authorized officials, for violating the regulation as stated in the other applied laws and regulations on mining, and for failing to meet the obligations stated in the IUP.
In the decree, the regent stated the revocation was made on the grounds that the holders have failed to meet their obligations as stipulated by the law. There has been a fact that some of Ridlatama?s subsidiary companies? concession areas stated in the IUPs are for areas within a protected forest, in which requiring prior written approval from the Minister of Forestry for any activity conducted on such protected forest area. The requirement is stated and stipulated in the article 50 paragraph (3) letter g of the Forestry Law No.41 of the Year 1999. (denny)