Disposed

Thanendra Singh Rajput and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh

NGT8 Aug 2024Original Application No. 38/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBunal examined complaints regarding blasting vibrations and environmental impact at a stone mine in Balaghat, M.P. A committee reported that while the mine operated with valid permissions, it lacked necessary safety notifications and deep-hole blasting clearance. The Tribunal accepted the suspension of the application.

What did the court decide?

Directed the applicant proponent to comply with committee recommendations including notifying DGMS, appointing a qualified manager, and arranging controlled blasting times.

Thanendra Singh Rajput and Others vs State of Madhya… — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 04

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Original Application No. 38/2024(CZ)

¶4

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Applicant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State Of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 08.08.2024

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. A SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant(s): None. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anupama Singhai, Adv. (with Mr. Rajat Garg, Adv. & Mr. Anshuman Shukla, Adv.) Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. (with Mr. Mehul Bhardwaj, Adv.) Ms. Parul Bhadoria, Adv.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This letter petition, signed by more than 33 persons of village have been sent to this Tribunal, which was treated as a letter petition. The grievance of the applicant is that in village Baniyatola Barasivni, District Balaghat (M.P) the non-applicants are doing the stone mine using the highly explosive materials for breaking the stones, causing tremors in the land and houses, which developed cracks in many houses and adversely affecting life and health of the residents. The houses of the nearby residents around the mining have been damaged due to the repeated explosions by the non-applicants in a larger quantity than required and the life of the people living there has become difficult. A constant fear has been developed due to explosions and there are, huge dust in the atmosphere causing breathing problems for the residents residing there.

¶12

¶13

OA No. 38/2024(CZ)

¶14

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶15

The siting criteria as fixed by the Central Pollution Control Board and MoEF&CC and the direction issued by the Director General of Mines, with regard to the explosions have not been strictly followed by the operators of the mines.

¶16

The matter was taken up by this Tribunal on 29.02.2024 and a committee was constituted to submit the factual and action taken report. The members of the committee consisting the representative of the District Collector, Seoni, CPCB, DGMS, MP Pollution Control Board visited the site and submitted the report as follows :-

¶17

1. “In compliance of the NGT order dated 29.02.2024, a committee of following officers was constituted to visit the site i.e. village Baniyatola, Kaydi District Balaghat & submit the factual & action taken report:-

¶18

i. Shri G.S. Dhurve, Additional Collector (Nominated by District Collector Seoni)

¶19

ii. Shri Sunil Kumar Meena, Scientist “E” Central Pollution Control Board Bhopal

¶20

iii. Shri Tirupathi Kamera, Deputy Director DGMS, Parasiya

¶21

iv. Shri Alok Kumar Jain, Regional Officer M.P. Pollution Control Board Jabalpur

¶22

Following were also present along with the applicant during the visit:

¶23

i. Shri Thanendra Singh Rajput, Applicant ii. Shri Jitendra Singh Rajput and others (nearby villagers)

¶24

iii. Shri R.K. Khatekar, Mining Officer, Mining office Balaghat

¶25

The committee visited the site on 16th April 2024 to get the factual status w.r.t. the complaint raised in the letter petition.

¶26

2. Field Observations:

¶27

i. The applicant has raised issues w.r.t. the stone mine of

¶28

¶29

OA No. 38/2024(CZ)

¶30

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶31

Shri Majid Khan which is located at khasra No.172/1,172/2,172/3 and 173 of Baniyatola Village, waraseoni Tehsil, District Balaghat, M.P in an area of 0.889 Ha with the name M/s Majid Khan Bolder mine. A small-scale stone crusher is also established in the mine area i.e. M/s A. K. Stone crusher by the miner Shri Majid Khan.

¶32

ii. As per the mining plan the mine is located in the area of 0.889 Ha under following pillars points:

¶33

*Pillar*	*Latitude*	*Longitude*
A	21.790383	80.080386
B	21.790014	80.080303
C	21.789744	80.080758
D	21.789528	80.080656
E	21.789492	80.080761
F	21.789539	80.080808
G	21.789483	80.080983
H	21.789411	80.080975
I	21.789311	80.082039
J	21.789564	80.082047
K	21.790097	80.080844

¶34

iii. The mine lease for extraction of stone was granted for next 10 years i.e. 03.09.2033 in 0.889 Ha vide letter No.1045/khanij/2023 dated 03.09.2023.

¶35

iv. The Consent to Operate (CTO) issued by MPPCB to M/s A K Stone Crusher for 9000 TPA capacity is valid upto 31.05.2027.

¶36

v. The mine has valid Consent to Operate (CTO) till 02.09.2028 for the capacity of 4560 m3/annum.

¶37

vi. The mine earlier was on the name of Smt Shabana Khan w/o Shri Majid Khan. After the death of Smt Shabana Khan, the mine ownership was changed to Shri Majid khan.

¶38

¶39

OA No. 38/2024(CZ)

¶40

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶41

vii. The mine has obtained Environmental Clearance from State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 14.9.2015 & later on 26.02.2022 with change of ownership.

¶42

viii. On the day of visit, the mine was not found operational due to unavailability of the material to transport. The next blasting was scheduled on next day. The committee asked to schedule the blasting on 22nd April 2024 so that controlled blasting experiment can be conducted by the DGMS, Parasiya so study the impact on the properties/civil structure.

¶43

ix. The mined pits bench height was measures from the surface reduced level. The top bench was of 9m height & bottom was of 17.5m height. From surface RL the pit depth was 26.5 meter. As per the prescribed mining rule, mine owner has to inform the DGMS & District collector if the pit excavation is reaches 6m depth. However, as submitted by Shri Majid Khan, mine owner, no such written information was submitted.

¶44

x. The pillars were found erected as per the mine plan.

¶45

xi. The 12 to 15 ft wind braking wall were provided on the prominent wind direction to minimize the fugitive emission.

¶46

xii. A water tanker was provided for water sprinkling in side the plant premises roads and out side the premises to main road.

¶47

xiii. A movable tripod water sprinkling system was also provided to carry out dust suppression at any requisite location inside the premises.

¶48

xiv. Plantation were observed near the boundaries and near main gate. However, more plantation is to be done along

¶49

¶50

OA No. 38/2024(CZ)

¶51

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶52

with the effective water sprinkling on the kaccha roads.

¶53

xv. Production data reveals that production has been carried out as per the permitted capacity. Copy of the document is enclosed as Annexure-III.

¶54

xvi. The stone crusher with 9000TPA capacity, requires to improve with respect to covered conveyor system, water sprinkling on the conveyor with extension of the fall of the crushed material to control the fugitive emission.

¶55

xvii. There is a water canal at about 230-meter aerial distance from M/s Majid Khan mine. The nearest Kaydi village is aerially at about 500m distance.

¶56

xviii. The committee observed that few more small capacity stone mines are also established within 500 meters distance from the mine of M/s Majid Khan. The details are as below:

¶57

S. No	*Name of* *Mine*	*Mine area* *(in* *Hectare)*	*Production* *Capacity* (M³*/yr)*	*Environmen* *tal* *Clearance*	*Validity* of *Consent* to *Operate*	*Remark*
1	Kaydi Crusher Stone Quarry Farukh Sheikh	1.595 Ha	4999 M3/yr	SEIAA vide letter dated 29/04/2022	30/11/2027	Operational
2	Shri Sarang Jaiswal (Boulder Mine)	1.0 Ha	5700 M3/yr	DEIAA vide letter No 1068 dated 28/07/2016	17/07/2024	Operational
3	Asrar Ulla Madni (Boulder Quarry)	0.567 Ha	2000 M3/yr	DEIAA vide letter No 50 dated 04/04/2018	30/04/2027	Operational
4	Hamid Sekh (Boulder Mine)	0.405 Ha	3474 M3/yr	DEIAA vide letter No 11 dated 16/03/2017	30/04/2023	Closed

¶58

Currently, out of total 05 mines, 04 are operational and 01 has closed its operation.

¶59

xix. As per the records related to explosive use furnished by

¶60

¶61

OA No. 38/2024(CZ)

¶62

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶63

the mine owner during site visit, it was inferred that deep hole mining is carried out with 87mm diameter, 15-30 holes and 3-4 meters depth.

¶64

xx. It was informed by Shri Majid Khan, mine owner that monthly 1 or 2 blasting is carried out to get the mined material. The blasting is carried out between 10 AM to 2PM. However, no siren or alarm system is provided to alert the nearby localities.

¶65

xxi. During the committee visit on 16.4.2024, discussion with applicant Shri Thanendra Singh Rajput and other residents was made on the issue of blasting. The Panchnama prepared in presence of the villagers & committee members. The villagers informed that the blasting time is irregular and the blasting is done in heavy quantity due to which properties are damaging. Few of the properties which were nearly about 500 m distant from the M/s Majid Khan were visited and observed for the cracks & damages. Few of the cracks observed and recorded during visit. To ascertains that these are due to blasting or due to issue in civil construction, committee has decided to carry out the blasting study on 22.4.2024 as per the prescribed method of DGMS.

¶66

xxii. A sample test of trial blasting was conducted in presence of joint committee and villagers, about 144.56Kg of explosive was used, 13 holes of 3-4m depth and 100mm diameter holes were blasted during the trial blasting. The joint committee along with villagers had made observations standing at the nearest house of village Baniyatola & Kaydi which is located at 330m from the blasting site i.e. M/s Majid Khan mine.

¶67

¶68

OA No. 38/2024(CZ)

¶69

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶70

Two numbers Mine Mates (Seismograph/Vibrometer) were installed one at applicant’s house located at 800m and other at nearest house of the village located at 330m from the M/s Majid Khan mine. The blasting was done at mine at about 2.45pm, at the time of blasting no sound was heard from the applicant’s house and no vibration was recorded in the instrument fixed near his house. The Mine Mate installed at applicant’s house 800m distance from mine shown 0.07mm/s of Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) and 2nd Min Mate installed at nearest house of the village i.e., at 330m distance from mine has shown 0.0mm/s of PPV at 1.14 Hz which is almost zero as per the DGMS (Tech) Circular No. 7 of 1997. The Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) of 0.07mm/s recorded at 800m distance was probably due to vehicle movement during the visit. This vibration and PPV will not have effect on houses of villages and applicant’s house. So, the small cracks seen on the applicant’s house wall may not formed due to the effects of blasting conducted in Majid Khan Bolder Mine.

¶71

Depending on the type of structures and the dominant excitation, the peak particle velocity (PPV) on the ground adjacent to the structure shall not exceed the values given below in the table:

¶72

Table: permissible Peak Particle Velocity (ppv) at the foundation level of structures in Mining Areas

in mm/s

OA No. 38/2024(CZ)

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶77

Permissible standards for different type of structures have been arrived at considering the importance of building and structures. The buildings of historical importance and multi- storied structures are likely to get damaged with low level of vibration and therefore permissible standards are to be lowest. Similarly, buildings not belonging to the owner but with mud/brick in cement construction and others with good construction (RCC and framed structures) should also be protected but higher permissible standards than that of the level fixed for first category has been allowed, the buildings belonging to the owner of the mine are constructed for a limited period generally equal to the life of the project. The management accept that these buildings constructed within the mining area are likely to suffer some damages during the extraction of minerals, but the damages should be repairable. Therefore, slightly higher permissible levels of vibrations have been allowed in such cases.

¶78

The permissible PPV for Domestic houses/structures (Kuchha, brick & cement) at <8Hz dominant excitation frequency for buildings belonging to owner with limited span of life is 10. Which is very high than the measures ppv during the blasting experiment.

¶79

xxiii. During the blasting the recorded sound level which was in between 57 to 60dB, which is normal to the general atmosphere.

¶80

xxiv. The Ambient air quality monitored during the blasting day i.e. 22.4.2024 was observed as RSPM (PM10) – 92.04 µg/m3, SO2 - 8 µg/m3 & NO2 - 26 µg/m3. All the values were below the prescribed NAAQS, 2009.

¶81

xxv. Further it was submitted by representative of DGMS,

¶82

¶83

OA No. 38/2024(CZ)

¶84

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶85

Parasiya that notice of opening mine was not given to the DGMS and a duly qualified manager was not appointed in the mine and machinery was being used conducting deep hole blasting (87mm) without obtaining permission from DGMS.

¶86

3. Summary

¶87

The mine of Shri Majid Khan has obtained prescribed statutory permissions of SEIAA, MPPCB & Mining department and operating as per the mine plan. No illegal mining was observed. The mine has satisfactory dust suppression system with water tanker & movable tripod water sprinkler. However, the stone crusher requires improvement w.r.t. covering of conveyor belts & arrangement of the water sprinkling in the conveyor system & screen. The mine has provided 12-15ft heighted wind braking wall on the prominent wind directions and erected mine boundary pillars.

¶88

The mine is nearly 500m distant from the village. There are 04 other mines established other than the mine of M/s Majid Khan. Out of these, 01 has closed its operation.

¶89

The blasting experiment was conducted at the mine of M/s Majid Khan as per the averment made in the letter petition of Sh Thanendra Singh Rajput. The peak particle velocity was observed 0.0mm/s at the distance of 330m from the mine, which is very low as per the permissible limits as per the DGMS (Tech) Circular No. 7 of 1997. This vibration and PPV will not have effect on houses of villages and applicant’s house. So, the small cracks seen on the applicant’s house wall may not formed due to the effects of blasting conducted in Majid Khan Bolder Mine of Shri Majid Khan. The ambient air quality was also found under the prescribed standards of NAAQS, 2009.

¶90

¶91

OA No. 38/2024(CZ)

¶92

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶93

4. Action Taken Report

¶94

i. As per the field observation, the DGMS is issuing notice to the mine owner M/s Majid Khan for not informing on mine pit opening, no permission to deep hole and for not deputing qualified manager.

¶95

5. Recommendations:

¶96

i. M/s Majid Khan may immediately inform the DGMS & District Collector as per the prescribed mineral rule as the depth of the pit has exceeded from 6m.

¶97

ii. M/s Majid Khan shall obtain the permission for deep hole & depute qualified mine manager and ensure controlled blasting.

¶98

iii. M/s Majid Khan shall provide effective enclosers and closed conveyors system on the stone crusher.

¶99

iv. All the mines operational within 500m shall carry out blasting only in prescribed time & arrange siren to alert the nearby residents for safety. Further, mining department may prescribe different time schedule for blasting to avoid cumulative impact of the controlled blasting.”

¶100

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that there is nothing like explosion causing vibration and there is no negative impact on the eco-system. It is further submitted that mine is operated as per consent/permit and as per precautionary conditions imposed by the authorities concerned.

¶101

Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that there is criminal litigation against the parties, which are pending before the competent criminal court (either decided or pending).

¶102

We have examined the report submitted by the joint committee which discloses that the necessary statutory permission from SEIAA and MPPCB

¶103

¶104

OA No. 38/2024(CZ)

¶105

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

¶106

and the Mining Department has been obtained and no illegal mining was observed.

¶107

The mine has satisfactory dust suppression system with water tanker and movable tripod water sprinkler. The committee has recommended certain actions and measures which are required to be taken for further improvement. Accordingly, we accept the report and direct the project proponent to comply the recommendations submitted by the joint committee.

¶108

We further direct the State Pollution Control Board and the director General (Mines) to regularly monitor the actions and compliance of the recommendation and to ensure that the rules with regard to the vibration and directions issued by the DGMS must be strictly observed with and necessary permission must be taken from the authorities concerned. With these observations the Original Application No. 38/2024 stands

¶109

disposed of.

¶110

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶111

Dr. A Senthil Vel, EM

¶112

08^th August, 2024 O.A No. 38/2024(CZ) PN

¶113

¶114

OA No. 38/2024(CZ)

¶115

Thanendra Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State Of M.P. & Ors.

Thanendra Singh Rajput and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thanendra Singh Rajput and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narasimha Devadiga vs the State of Karnataka Represented by Its Chief Secretary

Dinesh Prasad Chaurasia & Ors. vs State of Bihar

Sadiq Hussain vs State of Chattisgarh

Sunil Kumar vs

Brijesh Singh vs

Ramesh Mahendru vs

Jeevan George vs Central Pollution Control Board

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi

Sadiq Hussain vs State of Chattisgarh

Sadiq Hussain vs State of Chattisgarh

Sawai Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Sudesh Gupta vs Samandar Patel Colonizer

Draupadi Bai vs State of Madhya Pradesh

News Item Titled "Korba Gram Panchayat Chicholi Mein Dhadalle Se Ho Raha Ret Ka Avaidh Khanan Evam Parivahan Dekhen Video" Appearing in Cgnn 24 News vs State of Chattisgarh