Udupi: Dalits also should take part in Dharma Sansad, says Pejawar seer

The euphoria over the claim that around 3,000 tonnes of gold reserves, worth Rs 12 trillion, have been discovered in Uttar Pradesh’s Sonbhadra district could not last even 24 hours, with the Geological Survey of India (GSI) clarifying on Saturday there had been no such discovery.

The GSI, headquartered in Kolkata, rebutted the claims of the Uttar Pradesh Directorate of Geology and Mining (UPDGM), and said “miscommunication” must have led to the wrong reporting of facts.

M Sridhar, director general of the GSI, said nobody in the agency gave any such data. He said 52,806 tonnes of gold ore was found in Sonbhadra district during the exploration work in 1998-2000. From this reserve, only 160 kg of gold can be extracted.

“There must have been some miscommunication of facts because of which the gold ore deposits have been overestimated. We have written a letter to Uttar Pradesh (UPDGM), stating the facts. The GSI has not estimated such kind of vast resource of gold deposits in Sonbhadra,” Sridhar said.

ALSO READ: 2,900-tonne gold mine found in Sonbhadra, 4 times that of India's reserves

The UPDGM had said on Friday that gold deposits were found in Son Pahadi and Hardi areas of the district. Sridhar said while gold ore was found in the area during the GSI’s exploration work in 1998-2000, it had told the state government about the discovery in November last year.

Under the new regulation, which came into effect from 2015, the GSI has to inform the state government when ore deposits are discovered. Earlier, no such action was mandatory. In its report, the GSI estimated that only 3.03 gm of gold can be extracted from a tonne of ore. It also clarified that even the extraction amount was tentative and could not be established for certain.

Moreover, Sridhar said the deposits were spread across only 0.5 sq km in forest land, which made the mining of ore economically unviable. “When there are several mines nearby, we can club it into a block and then it makes sense to mine the ore. But in this case, the deposits are too small to make it viable for any company to mine it,” he said. The GSI usually prioritises its exploration work based on the needs of the Centre. While strategic minerals like tin, cobalt, lithium, beryllium, germanium, gallium, indium, tantalum, niobium, selenium, and bismuth are atop the list in GSI exploration, gold is another commodity on its priority list.

According to the World Gold Council, India has reserves of 630 tonnes of gold.

Thiruvanthapuram, Feb 21: Rape-accused Bishop Franco Mulakkal has been accused of sexual abuse by another nun. Police sources say that there is at least one more nun who has given a statement of sexual assault against the bishop.

This nun is a witness in the rape case registered against Franco Mulakkal. She is the 14th witness in the case and in her statement, she said that the bishop made sexually-colored and lewd remarks to her over the phone.

As per the nun, they were in communication via phone calls, chat and video calls for a period of two years from 2015 to 2017.

In the statement, the nun said that she kept quiet as she was scared of the bishop.

In her witness statement in September 2018, she said that in 2017, the bishop visited the convent she was in and hugged and kissed her.

Police say that the witness was not ready to file a complaint against the bishop. They had alerted the police in the jurisdiction and when the team met her, she refused to file a complaint. Hence a separate case wasn't registered against Bishop Franco

The first nun of Missionaries of Jesus had accused Franco of raping her multiple times at the Kuruvilangadu convent in Kottayam. The FIR in the case was registered in June 2018.

Then after protests, Franco was arrested on September 21, 2018.

The chargesheet in the case was submitted in April 2019. In the chargesheet, Bishop Franco Mullackal has been charged under various sections of the IPC: 342 (wrongful confinement), 376 (2k) (rape on a woman incapable of giving consent), 376 (2n) (causing grievous bodily harm during rape), 376 (c) (a) 377 (unnatural offence) and 506 (1) (criminal intimidation).