2016 (12) TMI 1757 - HC - Indian Laws

Quarrying operations carried on without the necessary sanctions and permitsblasting operations carried on for the purpose of the construction of a National Highway - prohibited operation or not - Held that - There should also be an expert opinion taken as to the extent and capacity of blasting permitted, considering the proximity of the residences and the time and frequency to which it has to be limited. The complaint raised by the petitioners is with respect to the large scale damage caused to the residences of the petitioners as also the pollution occasioned. The damage caused to the buildings is by reason of the blast induced ground vibrations, the intensity of which would depend upon the quantity of explosives used, an assessment of which has not been undertaken by the district administration; by itself or through an expert agency. There is also air pollution caused by the generation of air pressure and noise, on the actual blasting, as also the debris thrown into the atmosphere when the rock formations are turned into rubble. The activity hence is also one coming within the ambit of The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (referred to as EP Act and EP Rules). The standards prescribed by the PCB hence becomes applicable and without a consent to operate there can be no operations of blasting carried on which effectively is deemed to be a Mine as defined under the Mines Act and quarrying of minor mineral is carried on under the MMDR Act. The hazardous effect of blasting carried on has to be assessed and the pollution occasioned too, has to be contained. The 7th respondent would be obliged to carry out the blasting work only with a consent to operate from the PCB. The understanding of the PCB that the requirements would not be applicable to such road widening work is obviously wrong and contrary to the statutory provisions. In such circumstance, the 7th respondent would have to necessarily obtain a mining permit under the KMMC Rules and a Consent to Operate from the PCB so as to carry on the blasting works - It is also to be verified whether the 7th respondent would have to obtain an Environmental Clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification No. 2006 (SO 1533E) dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change; by S.O. No. 141(E) dtd. 15.01.2016 - The District administration also would have to conduct a study by an expert agency, or the PCB as to the depth and number of holes, their diameter, the quantity of explosive charge used, the influence it has on the impact of the blasts and so on and so forth to regulate the magnitude of the ground vibrations and ensure that no damage is caused to the adjacent material including buildings as has been specified in the Specifications of MOSRT & H; if at all it is permitted as per the specifications issued by the PCB as made applicable by the KMMC Rules. The 7th respondent would be entitled to approach the appropriate authorities and continue with the work after getting the requisite sanctions - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of blasting operations for National Highway construction.
2. Proximity of blasting operations to residential areas.
3. Compliance with safety standards and environmental regulations.
4. Requirement of permits and sanctions for blasting operations.
5. Impact of blasting on property and residents.
6. Applicability of the Mines Act and related regulations.
7. Requirement for Environmental Clearance (EC).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Blasting Operations for National Highway Construction:
The petitioners are aggrieved with the blasting operations carried on for the construction of a National Highway, which they claim causes damage to nearby residences. The contractor produced permissions and sanctions from various authorities, including the Additional District Magistrate and the District Collector, who granted permissions under specific conditions. The National Highway Authority contended that blasting operations are permitted as per the "Specifications for Road and Bridge Works" issued by the Ministry of Shipping, Road, Transport, and Highways.

2. Proximity of Blasting Operations to Residential Areas:
The petitioners contend that their residences are within 50 meters from the blasting site, which is within the prohibited distance of 100 meters as prescribed by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (PCB) for quarries. The blasting operations are alleged to be causing significant damage to the residences, shaking their foundations and causing untold misery to the residents.

3. Compliance with Safety Standards and Environmental Regulations:
The court emphasized that even if the work is carried out with requisite sanctions, it must ensure that citizens' rights and properties are not put to peril. The court noted that the work essentially involves mining operations as defined under the Mines Act, 1952, and the Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). The contractor must comply with all applicable laws, including the Mines Act and the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961.

4. Requirement of Permits and Sanctions for Blasting Operations:
The court observed that the 7th respondent (contractor) had not approached the District Geologist for a mining permit, which is required under the MMDR Act. The court also noted that Rule 106 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules (KMMC Rules), which exempted the obligation to obtain a quarrying permit for government-owned lands, was held to be ultra vires. Therefore, the contractor must obtain the necessary permits and sanctions, including a mining permit and a Consent to Operate from the PCB.

5. Impact of Blasting on Property and Residents:
The court acknowledged the grievances of the petitioners regarding the damage to their properties and the hazardous conditions caused by the blasting operations. The court stressed that national development cannot be advanced by flouting safety standards and putting citizens' lives and properties at risk. The court suggested that alternative measures, such as manual removal of boulders and rock formations, could be considered.

6. Applicability of the Mines Act and Related Regulations:
The court referred to previous judgments to establish that the Mines Act and the MMDR Act are complementary enactments. The court noted that the use of explosives for rock extraction qualifies the activity as mining under the Mines Act. The court also highlighted the need for compliance with the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, which require specific qualifications for blasters and more stringent conditions for blasting operations.

7. Requirement for Environmental Clearance (EC):
The court directed that it must be verified whether the contractor requires an Environmental Clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006. The District Geologist must verify if the work undertaken by the contractor falls under the category requiring EC as per the EIA notification.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition and restrained the contractor from carrying out blasting operations until the requisite sanctions and permits are obtained. The District administration is tasked with ensuring no blasting operations are carried out until compliance with all discussed regulations is achieved. The court emphasized the need for sustainable development and the protection of citizens' rights and properties.