Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 35
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
S.L.P.(C) No. 21211 of 2012
BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR … PETITIONER
VERSUS
BHANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SLP (C) No. 22377 of 2012
WITH
SLP (C) NO. 23551 OF 2012
WITH
SLP (C) NO. 29698 OF 2012
WITH
SLP (C) NO. 25186 OF 2012
WITH
SLP (C) NO. 31905 OF 2013
WITH
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2024.01.12
17:11:05 IST
Reason:
SLP (C) NO. 31724 OF 2012
1
O R D E R
1. The Chittorgarh Fort represents the quintessence of a tribute to
nationalism, courage, medieval chivalry, and sacrifice exhibited between
the seventh and the sixteenth centuries by several rulers, like the Mewar
rulers of Sisodia, their kinsmen, women, and children. The Chittorgarh Fort
has weathered and withstood many battles and has been a witness to the
power and pride of the kings who occupied the Fort. The history is replete
with brave, extraordinary and indomitable courage exhibited by the rulers
and occupants of the Fort.
1.1 The Chittorgarh Fort is a notified monument under the Ancient and
Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Declaration
of National Importance) Act, 1951 and the Ancient Monuments
Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, and also a notified UNESCO
World Heritage Site. The Fort attracts tourists from far and near for
sightseeing and to look at the tall and strong structures on the hilltop of
Chittorgarh, evidencing the grit and ability to withstand all adversities.
Despite the passage of centuries, from the time of construction, the
2
Chittorgarh Fort retains some significant, world-class structures, including
the Vijay Stambh, Kirti Stambh, Padmini Palace, Kumbha Palace and
Meera Mandir.
2. The Fort’s history and legacy make it a preferred destination for
tourists. The serene hillock, which had less populated surroundings at one
point, is subject to contemporaneous development, urbanisation, etc. The
principal issue considered by the High Court of Rajasthan in the judgement
impugned before us does not deal with the peripheral inconveniences that
the Fort has experienced with the onset of urbanisation and tourism in the
immediate past. But a distinct problem of considerable importance.
3. The immutable geology of the area has limestone formation of the
Vindhyan age, and as per geological study and assessment, the limestone
is located in Nimbahera city. The mineral reserve of this stone occurs
between Nimbahera shales and Suket shales.
4. The limestone is a valuable mineral resource from the perspective
of the State exchequer and is a material or a raw material used in more
than one sense. The State Government granted prospective mining leases
of small, medium and large areas in and around the hillock and the
surrounding areas of the Chittorgarh Fort to individuals/industrial houses.
The exploitation of minerals available in the surrounding area by the
lessees to the State Government, particularly in an unscientific manner or
3
disproportionate exploitation of minerals in hard and rude mining activities,
was seen as a threat to the existential utility of the Chittorgarh Fort and the
structures referred to in paragraph no. 1.1 ( supra) of this Order.
5. One Shri Thakur Umed Singh Rathore filed W.P. (PIL) No.
1316/1999 before the High Court of Rajasthan, questioning the blasting
operations undertaken for limestone extraction resulting in possible
damage to the existing structures of the Chittorgarh Fort. The gist of the
complaint is that continuous/frequent exposure of the ancient structures in
the Chittorgarh Fort to the peak particle velocity (PPV) generated by the
explosives used in mineral extraction would damage the heritage
monument, and this negligence of the present generation will leave only
the remnants of the Chittorgarh Fort to the succeeding generations.
6. The issue is undoubtedly of grave concern, and the conflict between
the exploitation of mineral wealth and sustaining the neighbourhood,
stated pithily, adheres to the principle of sustainable exploitation of mineral
resources without adversely affecting the community interest in any
manner.
7. On 06.08.2002, W.P. (PIL) No. 1316/1999 was disposed of. For the
present purpose, we are not referring to the material and the larger
question considered by the Rajasthan High Court in the order dated
06.08.2002, in W.P. No. 1316/1999.
4
8. Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 herein filed W.P. (PIL) No. 6591/2011
before the High Court of Rajasthan against the Union of India through
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)/Respondent No. 7 herein and others.
The gist of the writ prayer is stated thus:-
i. To protect the Chittorgarh Fort.
ii. To stop blasting within a radius of ten kilometres from the Fort.
iii. To refrain the Mining Department from granting mining leases
within ten kilometres of the radius of the Fort.
iv. To prohibit open blasting within a radius of ten kilometres from
the Fort.
Birla Corporation Limited Chanderiya, Chittorgarh/Petitioner herein is
arrayed as Respondent No. 20 in W.P. (PIL) No. 6591/2011.
9. During the pendency of W.P. No. 6591/2011, the High Court had the
advantage of the replies from the contesting respondents; the affidavits of
government departments setting out their view on all the issues
considered by the High Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 6591/2011 and on the
impact of blasting on the Chittorgarh Fort on 25.05.2012 W.P. (PIL) No.
6591/2011 was disposed of.
10. To conclude this part of the narrative, we refer to the following
paragraphs of the impugned judgement:-
5
“For causing severe damage to the fort structures including Vijay
Stambha, Kirti Stambha and Kumbha Mahal and houses and affecting
ecology and environment, considering the polluter-pays principle, it is just
and proper to direct Birla Cement and other mine holders to pay
compensation for restoring back glory of ancient monument to the extent
it is possible after damage. A lot of damage has also been caused in the
area in question, let restoration and its reclamation be done as
expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, we make the interim order absolute and direct that no mining
activities and blasting shall take place within 10 kms from the fort wall.
The mining leases granted within 10 kms from fort wall are cancelled.
The Birla Cement as well as mine holders are directed to make payment
of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 crores (Five Crores only), out of
which, 90% shall be paid by Birla Cement and the remaining amount shall
be paid by other mine holders involved in blasting. The amount of
compensation shall be kept at the disposal of Archaeological Survey of
India (ASI) and be utilized for repair and upkeep of the fort in question.
The plan to repair damages and improve facilities be submitted to this
Court within four months.”
11. Hence, SLP (C) No. 21211 of 2012 at the instance of Birla
Corporation Limited Chanderiya, Chittorgarh/Respondent No. 20 in W.P.
(PIL) No. 6591/2011.
12. On 20.07.2012, a notice on the SLP was issued. The order dated
18.01.2013 of this Court reads thus:-
“It is evident from the impugned order that the main issue before the High
Court pertained to the impact of blasting operations in the periphery of
Chittorgarh fort. Hence, the question of a complete ban on mining
operations around the fort, even without involving blasting, has not been
examined. The parties are ad idem that before making final orders on the
prayer for stay of the impugned directions, a report from an expert on the
subject matter be called for. It is suggested that in the first instance, the
Central Building Research Institute, Roorke, may be asked to conduct a
study of impact of mining on the said fort even without blasting operations
and submit its interim report. In other words, an expert should evaluate
the effect of mining in the fort area, with any kind of manual or electric
gadgets, like surface scrappers, rock breakers, etc.
We accede to the prayer and accordingly request the Director of the Said
Institute to nominate an expert to undertake the said exercise and submit
his report as expeditiously as possible. In any case, interim report shall
6
be submitted within three weeks from today. It will be open to the said
expert to consult or seek assistance of any other agency, as he may
deem necessary. It is agreed that all the expenses in this regard shall be
borne by M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. The Secretarial assistance shall,
however, be provided by the State. In the meanwhile, the petitioners are
permitted to carry out mining operations manually, without the use of any
kind of heavy equipment like the JCBs, Earth movers etc. As the said fort
is a protected monument, the ASI shall closely monitor the mining
operations. [D.K Jain, Madan B. Lokur, JJ].”
13. On 08.03.2013, as part of monitoring the effect of the mining
activities in the neighbourhood of the Chittorgarh Fort, the consensus
emerged from the submissions made by the parties appearing in this lis,
this Court directed the study of a cumulative impact of peak particle
velocity (PPV) on the structures in the Fort from the blasting operations
undertaken by the lessees of the mining leases. The Petitioner before this
Court possesses a mining lease for 598.98 hectares at a distance of about
4.5 kilometres from the boundary of the Chittorgarh Fort and the Petitioner
challenges the directions issued by the High Court in paragraph no. 10
( supra ). A few other SLPs are tagged with the main case. We are not
referring to the challenge in these SLPs, for the directions we are
considering through this order.
14. This Court, permitted the study of cumulative impacts of vibrations
and peak particle velocity (PPV) on the structures in the Fort from the
blasting operations and simultaneously prohibited blasting for any
purpose, including the proposed study, within the radius of one kilometre
from the boundary of the Chittorgarh Fort. This Court directed the Central
7
Building Research Institute, Roorkee (CBRI, Roorkee), to undertake a
comprehensive study of the environmental impact on the subject
monument from the mining and blasting activities by the lessees of the
mining lease within a radius of ten kilometres.
15. CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee, constituted a team of experts and officers to
undertake a comprehensive study to assess the impact of mining by using
explosives on the structural integrity of the Chittorgarh Fort based on the
following terms of reference:-
i. Whether blasting including the cumulative effect of blasting
beyond a specified distance has any impact whatsoever upon the
structure of the Fort?
ii. What appeared to be the causes that have led to cracks and other
damage caused to the Fort, other than ageing simplicitor?
iii. Whether the uncontrolled access to tourist has any adverse impact
upon the structure and if so, any suggested steps to regulate this
activity.
iv. Whether the activities within the colony situated in the Fort as well
as the flow of traffic including heavy traffic in the vicinity of the Fort
have any adverse consequences upon the structural integrity of
the Fort, and if so the suggested measures to deal with the
problems.
v. General recommendations on the steps to be taken to restore the
structural integrity to repair the cracks and generally ensure that
no damage in future is caused to the structural integrity.
vi. A comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
covering all kind of pollution-air, ground water, noise etc. by the
complete cycle of mining activities including its transportation.
16. CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee, between November 2013 and September
2014, undertook the study of the environmental impact from the mining
activities and generated data from the site during the full-scale blasting
operations both individually and in combinations from the mines. CSIR-
8
CBRI, Roorkee associated the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel
Research (CIMFR) in the study and submitted the Report dated
30.09.2014. It is apposite to excerpt a few of the conclusions in the report
dated 30.09.2014:-
“ 1.10: General recommendations for all the mines
i. Although the vibration induced by blasting was found to be
within the permissible limits, it is recommended that
continuous vibration monitoring using suitable instruments
in each group of mines shall be carried out by the mining
personnel. Periodic review, say half yearly of the vibration
recoded by each mine operator shall be done by expert
agency. This will not only provide control on the unguarded
blasting practices but over a period of time, blasting
practices will be improved by educating the mine operators,
particularly in case of Manpura and Bhairon Singhji ka
Khera quarries.
ii. In BSK and Manpura quarries, advanced blasting
techniques using delay detonator both electric as well as
non-electric initiation systems should be implemented in
phased manner by imparting training to the mine operators.
This will enhance safety as well as productivity of all the
stake holders.
iii. Structural health monitoring of Chittorgarh Fort structures
should be carried out for at least another two years by
installing number of sensors at critical structures to
measure response of the Fort structures during actual
mining operations.
iv. DMG shall be given greater responsibility towards the
supervision of routine blasting practices in compliance with
safety guidelines and MMR 1962 in case of mining of minor
minerals.
v. There should be at least one licensed blaster for each
group of five small quarries for both BSK and Manpura
quarries separately. Only a licensed blaster shall be
allowed to conduct blast after following proper safety
precautions and evacuation of men and machinery from the
danger zone.
vi. In all the basting practices, safety guidelines and approval
as suggested by Directorate General of Mines Safety,
Dhanbad and other regulatory bodies shall be strictly
followed.
1.11 Conclusion:
9
Monitoring of blast-induced vibration and air overpressure were
done at more than 500 locations by conducting approximately 100
blasts and mines between 1.0 and 10.0 km. Based on that, the
following conclusions are drawn-
1. Review of various National and International standards for
safe limit of ground vibration induced by traffic, machinery
and blasting reveal that the ground vibration and air
overpressure below 2.0 mm/s and 134 dB (L) respectively
will not cause any damage to the historic building
irrespective of the source of vibration and air overpressure.
2. In BCW mines, values of ground vibration and air
overpressure are reduced to less than 2.0 m/s and 110 dB
(L) at distance of 500 m and 800 m respectively whereas
the minimum distance of the Fort from the mine boundary
is about 4.5 km.
3. In Bhairon Singhji ka Khera (BSK) and Manpura quarries,
values of vibration and air overpressure were less than the
recommended values of 2.0 mm/s and 134 dB (L)
respectively at 200 m distance from the blasting source.
4. It can therefore be concluded that the vibration and air
overpressure induced by blasting in mines of Birla Cement
Works, Chittorgarh, Bhairon Singhji ka Khera and Manpura
Quarries may be concluded to absolutely safe as per
various National and International Standards.
5. Blast design parameters as discussed in “Section 10.0
Recommended Blasting Practices” of this report shall be
used for routine blasting practices in each mine.
6. It is suggested that continuous supervision of blasting
operations, monitoring of blast induced ground vibrations in
Jai-Surjana Mine of Birla Cements Works (BCW), Bhairon
Singhji Ka Khera and Manpura quarries shall be carried out
by the mining personnel themselves and recorded data of
vibration should be checked and ratified by an expert
agency at least once in a year.”
17. We have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
have perused the Report dated 30.09.2014 filed by CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee.
The Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan has placed
before us an abstract of the Report by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Mining
Research Cell, TMP Division on the impact of blast-induced ground
vibration on the Chittorgarh Fort, due to working of limestone, china clay
and red ochre mines in the radius of ten kilometres of Chittorgarh Fort.
10
18. The report filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan records
independent conclusions for Jai-Surjana and Block-B (Bherda), Manpura
stone quarries and Bheiron Singh Ji Ka Khera which read thus:-
“ Jai-Surjana and Block-B (Bherda)- The minimum distance from
the lease hold area to Chittorgarh fort is 4 kms and therefore, it is
concluded that there is no impact on Chittorgarh fort due to
induced ground vibration using 160-300 kg/delay with present
existing practice. However, the maximum charge 500 kg per delay
will also dissipate at a distance of 2191 m and will have no
significant impact on Chittorgarh fort. Thus, it is evident that the
maximum charge per delay should be restricted to 500 kg during
rainy season and not increase beyond this limit in any
circumstances for safe protection of Chittorgarh fort due to mine
blasting. Thus, it is concluded from the regression analysis and the
field observations considering the importance of the Historical
/Archaeological monuments - Chittorgarh Fort maximum charge
of explosive /delay as per existing practice may be restricted
upto 300 kg in dry season and 500 Kg in rainy season for safe
protection of Chittorgarh fort. There is no adverse effect on
Chittorgarh Fort and other monuments situated on the hill
due to present existing blasting practices/mining operations
in the mines of Birla Cement (Block-C Jai-Surjana) limestone
mines.
Manpura stone quarries- It is concluded from the regression
analysis and the field observations, that there is no adverse impact
on Chittorgarh fort due to blasting using the maximum charge per
delay 0.125 kg as per existing practice. The low frequency range
data less than 25 Hz not recorded during the monitoring and
therefore explosive charge/delay as per existing practice may
be continued upto 0.125 kg for the safety of Chittorgarh Fort.
Bheiron Singh Ji Ka Khera- It can be concluded from the
regression analysis and the field observations, that there is no
adverse impact on Chittorgarh fort due to blasting using the
maximum charge per delay 0.125-0.25 kg as per existing practice.
The low frequency range data less than 25 Hz not recorded during
the monitoring and therefore explosive charge/delay as per
existing practice may be continued upto 0.125 - 0.250 kg for
the safety of Chittorgarh Fort.
Segwa Area- China clay/Red ochre mines (15 nos.) falling within
10 km distance of Chittorgarh are situated at Segwa Area and are
not covered in this study as they have not approached to IBM for
study.”
11
19. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner/Birla Corporation Limited invited our attention to the
chronology of dates and events concerning the Petitioner, which operates
a mining lease of 598.98 hectares at a distance of about 4.5 kilometres
from the Chittorgarh Fort. The mining operations undertaken by the
Petitioner from any viewpoint to wit scientific, technical and legal principles
are safe and do not cause a debilitating effect on the structures in the
Chittorgarh Fort. Therefore, the directives issued by the High Court in the
impugned judgement are unreasonable directions, based on mere
apprehensions, conjectures and contrary to the record before the High
Court. The State government, after appreciating the distance at which the
limestone mines of the Petitioner are located and being satisfied with the
safety, granted mining leases to the Petitioner. The manual prospecting or
mining of limestone is onerous, economically disadvantageous, and
without there being direct or indirect injury from the activities of the
Petitioner, the impugned judgement imposed a ban on safe and technical
ways of mineral extraction from the mines situated at Jai-Surjana and
Block-B (Bherda). Therefore, he prays for setting aside the judgement.
19.1 Dr. Singhvi contends by relying on the report dated 30.09.2014 of
CSIR-CBRI, that the study of impact from blasting at the Petitioner’s mine,
has not travelled beyond a maximum distance of 1 ½ kilometres, and the
12
blasts carried out at subject mines did not record any vibrations/ peak
particle velocity (PPV) at the Fort. Therefore, he contends that the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside, and the Petitioner is allowed
to operate the mines in accordance with the grant conditions.
19.2 The Senior Counsel alternatively placed on record the view of the
Petitioner/ Birla Corporation Limited on preserving the existing grandeur
of the Chittorgarh Fort for posterity. As a responsible corporate entity, the
Petitioner is prepared to establish its bonafides in any further study
intended to correlate between the alleged debilitating effect on structures
and the causes for such findings on the monuments in the Chittorgarh Fort.
He argues that the Petitioner proposes to adopt electronic blasting
systems, which have far lesser impacts of vibrations than the blasting
verified in the previous study. According to the Petitioner, electronic
blasting systems for fragmentation improvement are the latest technology.
This technology is used worldwide as a safe and scientifically proven
blasting method employed in mineral ore extraction by the lessees. The
Learned Counsel suggests that this Court can direct a fresh study on the
impact of blasting of the mines on the structures in the Chittorgarh Fort;
measures for ensuring the safety and structural soundness of the Fort,
and the Court monitors the working of mines before a final verdict on the
minimum distance to be maintained for blasting operations is rendered.
13
However, it is argued that if the ipse dixit allegations resulting in the
impugned directions are allowed to operate, the stakeholders would suffer
irreparable injuries.
20. The Learned Senior Counsel, Dr. Manish Singhvi, appearing for the
State, placing reliance on the Report of the Ministry of Coal and Mines,
Indian Bureau of Mines, Mining Research Cell, argues that though the
Report stipulates the operation beyond 1½ kilometres as a safe radius,
still he advises strict care and caution, and prefers to err on the side of
caution than cure in stipulating the prohibited radius. He contends that the
blasting should be restricted within a radius of five kilometres. We
appreciate the contention and, even a study of the impact from blasting
operations is directed by us. The study shall be undertaken beyond a five-
kilometre radius from the Chittorgarh Fort. During the proposed study, the
Expert Committee ensures that the maximum permissible explosives
recommended in the Report of the Indian Bureau of Mines, Mining
Research Cell is taken note of and acted accordingly. The study on the
impact from electronic blasting systems with the latest technology is
undertaken. He prays that until a framework on the working of mines in
the neighbourhood of the Chittorgarh Fort is finalised, this Court continues
to monitor the mining activities, particularly those carried out by blasting
to protect the monuments located in the Fort.
14
21. Mr. Jayant Kumar Mehta, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 contends that the impugned judgement has not
prohibited mining within the radius of ten kilometres but has restricted the
operation of the mining lease to manual mining alone. The Report
submitted by CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee, cannot be treated as a report of the
experts in the field of explosives/mine blasting operations. Firstly, it is
argued that the directions in the impugned judgement are tenable and,
secondly , essential in the circumstances established in the instant case.
21.1 Advocate Ajay Kumar Singh stated that any study of the impact
from blasting on the monument is by the experts in mining engineering,
civil engineering and geologists. According to the Counsel, the scope of
study must include baseline data collection, advanced remote sensing
techniques, advanced survey techniques, seismic monitoring and
vibration analysis, geological and geotechnical investigations and
structural analysis to implement the precautionary principle applied as a
stepping aid to sustainable development.
22. The Chittorgarh Fort was constructed in the Mauryan period, and
from time to time, the rulers of the kingdom rebuilt, expanded and
continued the legacy inherited. The Report of CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee, deals
with the impact on the Chittorgarh Fort from the explosives used in mining
and the peak particle velocity (PPV) on the structures existing in and
15
around the Fort. The Report also deals with the ancillary causes for the
present state of affairs, i.e., footfall of tourists, the presence of monkeys
and haphazard maintenance by the ASI and local authorities. We are of
the view that the approach to preserving the monument must be multi-
dimensional. With the passage of every year, the need to preserve
monuments increases. The prohibition and regulation of blasting would
address only one front of the problems identified in the Report. Therefore,
this Court is of the firm view that the Chittorgarh Fort, a heritage
monument, must be maintained and preserved under all the
circumstances. The common thread running through the argument of all
the Counsel in the steps needed to preserve the Fort are implemented
and if need be, this Court issues continuous mandamus from time to time
to the authorities.
23. We take note of the assertions of the Petitioner and the opposition
voiced by Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and other impleaded respondents. At
this juncture, we place on record our appreciation for the work undertaken
by CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee in filing the Report dated 30.09.2014. However,
we are also of the view that the safe minimum distance for blasting
operations from the Chittorgarh Fort suggested in the Report of the CSIR-
CBRI, Roorkee in all material particulars is not in line with the Report of
the Ministry of Coal and Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Mining Research
16
Cell. At the same time, despite reports suggesting that blasting operations
can be undertaken beyond the safe distance as suggested by the experts
would ought not to be given effect unless examined in a detailed study
undertaken by exploring the latest techniques and technologies. The
scientific/technological advancements can only be ignored if their efficacy
as wanting is established in a study undertaken by a committee
constituted by this Court. This Court at this stage of consideration ought
not to accept the electronic blasting system technique suggested by the
Petitioner can be a safe solution to allow mining operations by blasting
without a prohibitory radius. By choice, we prefer a third-party institution
and experts in this branch of engineering/science to undertake the study
independently and file a report before this Court on the aspects discussed
above.
24. In the preceding paragraphs, we have noticed other contributory
circumstances viz. negligence causing deterioration to the structures in
Chittorgarh Fort. Monkey menace, human/tourist footfall, unwanted
vegetation growth, and the defacing of statues are a few factors recorded
in the report dated 30.09.2014 that are contributing to the deterioration of
the Fort. The extent of damage to the monument is a serious question.
So, the prevention of damage from any such collateral activities must be
simultaneously addressed by the State Government of Rajasthan and the
17
ASI. Therefore, through this order, a three-pronged study and action plan
are implemented. Hence, the following directions:-
24.1 The recommendations in the Report dated
30.09.2014 which are directed against ASI and the State of
Rajasthan are implemented within two months from the
receipt of this Order. For the said purpose, we direct the
Union of India, through the Director General, ASI, to file a
compliance report on the deficiencies noted in the
monument’s maintenance, steps initiated and progress
made by the next date of hearing.
24.2 Respondent No. 8 is directed to ensure strict
implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules,
2016 and to take all steps necessary to control the monkey
menace and the sources of unauthorised littering in the
entire Fort and the neighbourhood. Respondents Nos. 8 and
12 are directed to issue orders within four weeks from today
to the local self-government for the said purpose and the
implementation of the directives, is monitored by the
regional office of Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board
(RSPCB). All the steps needed to implement Solid Waste
Management Rules, 2016, are completed within four weeks
18
from today. A report on periodic monitoring and the progress
made is filed by Respondent No. 12 for and on behalf of
Respondent No. 8. The above takes us to the crux of the
controversy in the SLPs.
24.3 We declare and hold that notwithstanding any
liberal recommendation on undertaking blasting operations
nearer to the Chittorgarh Fort, keeping in perspective the
continuous exposure of ancient monuments to peak particle
velocity (PPV) arising from blasting, a radius of five
kilometres from the compound wall of the Fort shall not be
subjected to mining by blasting or use of explosives for
mining of any minerals. In other words, the
manual/mechanical mining operations permitted within a
radius of five kilometres are allowed to be continued, subject
to the lessees possessing a valid lease in accordance with
law.
24.4 To undertake the study of environmental pollution
and impact on all the structures in the Chittorgarh Fort from
the blasting operations beyond a five-kilometre radius, the
Chairman, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of
Mines), Dhanbad, Jharkhand [IIT (ISM)- Dhanbad]
19
constitutes a team of multi-disciplinary experts in civil
engineering, earthquake engineering, structural geology
and mining engineering, within two weeks from the receipt
of a copy of this order and communicates it to the chief
engineer of the RSPCB and the Petitioner herein. The chief
engineer of the RSPCB shall be the member secretary of the
Expert Committee.
24.5 We reiterate the terms of reference already
formulated for the study as well, now ordered by this Order,
the terms read thus:-
i. Whether blasting including the cumulative effect of blasting
beyond a specified distance has any impact whatsoever upon the
structure of the Fort?
ii. What appeared to be the causes that have led to cracks and other
damage caused to the Fort, other than ageing simplicitor?
iii. Whether the uncontrolled access to tourist has any adverse impact
upon the structure and if so, any suggested steps to regulate this
activity.
iv. Whether the activities within the colony situated in the Fort as well
as the flow of traffic including heavy traffic in the vicinity of the Fort
have any adverse consequences upon the structural integrity of
the Fort, and if so the suggested measures to deal with the
problems.
v. General recommendations on the steps to be taken to restore the
structural integrity to repair the cracks and generally ensure that
no damage in future is caused to the structural integrity.
vi. A comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
covering all kind of pollution-air, ground water, noise etc. by the
complete cycle of mining activities including its transportation.
24.6 With the passage of time, technological
innovations have taken place and are kept in perspective by
20
the Committee for carrying out the proposed study. The
Committee, in addition to the terms of reference, keeps in
perspective, the framework of baseline data collection,
advanced remote sensing techniques, advanced survey
techniques, seismic monitoring and vibration analysis,
geological and geotechnical investigations and structural
analysis, as may be applicable to the study. The study shall
be carried out for four months from the date of
commencement and the blasting activities are allowed to be
undertaken during the study period.
24.7 Respondent No. 8 is directed to prepare the list of
the leaseholders beyond five kilometres and within a ten-
kilometre radius and furnish the details of lessees who
desire to operate by blasting to the Committee.
24.8 The statement of the Petitioner is accepted that in
the proposed study, the Petitioner uses an electronic
blasting system, and the explosives used for delay shall not
exceed the quantity suggested in the Report of Ministry of
Coal and Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Mining Research
Cell.
21
24.9 Similarly, any other lessee proposing to
undertake mine blasting shall furnish complete data of the
mining operations to Respondent Nos. 8 and 12, who would,
in turn, pass on the information to the Committee constituted
to study the impact of blasting operations from those sites
as well.
24.10 Respondent No. 8 ensures that no other lessee
undertakes mine blasting operations except the lessees
notified to the Committee.
24.11 The hillock and Nimbahera limestone, a
geological formation, have existed for ages. The structures
on the hillock do not wither away willy-nilly on mineral
extraction.
24.12 Respondent Nos. 8 and 12 are authorised to
direct stopping of blasting operations if the study at any
place results in unexpected damage to the structures in the
Fort without waiting for the orders of this Court.
24.13 The Petitioner/Birla Corporation Limited defray all
the expenses for carrying out the above study by the
committee constituted in terms of this Order.
22
24.14 In the event of any exigency or urgency, the
parties are given liberty to move the Court for directions.
24.15 The Committee files its Report on or before July
th
5 2024.
th
25. Post on July 9 , 2024.
.…..………...................J.
[SANJIV KHANNA]
.…....……….................J.
[S.V.N. BHATTI]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 12, 2024.
23