Disposed

Devidas Khatri v. Collector Office

NGT5 Aug 2024Original Application No. 49/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal examined a petition concerning worker deaths at a granite mine in Rajasthan. A joint committee report detailed the accident, safety violations, and subsequent actions. The court noted that reasonable compensation had been paid and corrective measures approved, leading to the disposal of the application.

What did the court decide?

The application was disposed of as reasonable compensation was awarded and remedial measures approved by authorities.

Devidas Khatri vs Collector Office — 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. 49/2024(CZ)

¶4

Devidas Khatri Applicant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 05.08.2024

¶8

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

¶9

For Applicant(s): Mr. Rohit Kumar Tuteja, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria, Adv. Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa, Adv. Mr. Shiv Shankar Bansal, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

On 22.02.2024 a newspaper article was published in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar with respect to death of 03 workers and 03 suffered injuries, while working in mining lease of respondent no. 11 i.e. Mis Panna Misri Granite (ML No. 33/2013) at village Samkadara, District Plai, Rajasthan. The newspaper article clearly reveals that the incident took place as a result of ongoing mining operation, however, safety of the workers during such operation was completely ignored. The photographs shown in the newspaper article clearly reveals that the mining operation was being undertaken in a complete unscientific manner.

¶12

The contention of the applicant is that due to indiscriminate drilling and blasting in order to extract stone and boulder as much as possible at a time, led to excessive vibration to the quarry and its surrounding making

¶13

¶14

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶15

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶16

the stability of quarry stone more vulnerable to collapse day by day. Further, extraction of stone has not been done step by step, the overburden can be seen within the mining lease which leaves a limited space for the workers. That the accident occurred on the mining lease of the respondent no. 11 where 03 individuals within the age group of 19 to 22 years of age have lost their life while earning their livelihood and 03 others have suffered injuries. It is undisputed that the accident occurred due to negligence of the respondent no. 11 as required safety measures were taken care of while operating the mining lease. The project proponent must appoint Mines Manager and technically qualified people to supervise the labourers, for operating the mines.

¶17

It is further contended that the mines of the respondents are in operation in violation of environmental rules and no proper safety guidelines has been taken by the respondents. The requisite permission and the blasting guidelines issued by the Department of Mines and Safety regarding blasting and use of explosive by the project proponent has not been obtained and further that the necessary license from PESO is wanting.

¶18

The matter was taken up by this Tribunal on 12.03.2024 and this Tribunal constituted a committee consisting One Representative from the Secretary Environment, State of Rajasthan, One Representative from the Director Mines & Safety, Directorate General Mines Safety, Ajmer Region, Ajmer, Rajasthan, One Representative from the Central Pollution Control Board and One representative from the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, with direction to submit the factual and action taken report.

¶19

The members of the committee visited the site and submitted the report as follows :-

¶20

1. “Factual status of alleged mining activity at Village Sakadara, Tehsil & District - Pali observed during joint visit:

¶21

¶22

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶23

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶24

Joint committee comprising of Director of Mines Safety, DGMS, Ajmer Region-2, Ajmer; Scientist- '13' CPCB, Bhopal; Regional Officer (RSPCB), Pali along with team of Regional Laboratory, Sr. Mines Foreman, Department of Mines and Geology, Sojat, Pali visited the site from 22.04.2024 to 23.04.2024.

¶25

The joint committee visited total 32 mining leases out of which 18 were found in working condition and remaining 14 were found non-operative. Further out of the total 18 working mining leases 12 were found operational. During the course of inspection the observation made by the committee are as follows:-

¶26

I. M/s Panna Misri Granite, ML No. 33/2013 (3.0 Ha), the alleged accident occurred in ML No. 33/2013. In reference of the alleged accident, the action taken by the State Government are as follows:-

¶27

A) An FIR bearing no. 40/2024 dated 23.02.2024 has been registered against M/s Panna Misri Granite for the alleged incident occurred in mining lease no. 33/2013. The copy of FIR is attached as Annexure-07.

¶28

B) The family members of the deceased workers have been paid compensation by M/s Panna Misri Granite in the presence of District Administration, Pali and the matter has been settled. In this regard, the lease holder submitted the agreement between the lease holder and family members of the deceased workers. The copies of agreements are attached as Annexure-08.

¶29

C) The lease holder has ceased to reveal the amount of compensation paid to the deceased.

¶30

D) The mining lease at which the accident occurred is nonoperational in compliance of the directions issued by the Department of Mines & Safety.

¶31

¶32

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶33

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶34

2. The Consent status of 32 mining leases:

¶35

a. Consent and Mining Lease Status of 18 mining leases found operational or in working condition-

¶36

S. N o. Name of Mining Lease	MI, No.	Area (in Ha)	Permitted production capacity (TPA)	CTO Validity	Environment Clearance Status	Dimensions of Mining Pit (LxBxD)	Mine lease validity	Status of Ravanna
1. M/s Jay Shiv Stone	11/2013	3	223916	30-09-2026	Issued by SEIAA on 26-08-2021	i t 150x75x 15	27-05-2063	ON
2. M/s Shri Thakur Granite Pvt. Ltd.	514/2012	3	15666	31-05-2023	Issued by SEIAA on 27-02-2015	40x30x15	17-05-2065	ON
3. M/s Jai Vijay Mines & Minerals	519/2012	3	54600	29-02-2024	Issued by SEIAA on 19-05-2014	70x50xFilled with Water	21-01-2063	ON
4. M/s Panna Misri Granite	33/2013	3	68600	31-05-2027	Issued by SEIAA on 30-04-2014	85x 70x40	17-10-2063	OFF
5. M/s Shri Shiv Mines and Minerals	47/2011	3	112448	30-11-2023	Issued by DEIAA on 30-11-2018	50x 40x 15	02-02-2062	ON
6. M/s Avinash Granites Pvt. Ltd.	501/2012	3	54600	29-02-2028	Issued by SEIAA on 29-03-2016	45x25x08	08-05-2063	ON
7. M/s Tirupati Granite & Minerals	524/2012	3	44800	30-06-2026	Issued by SEIAA on 30-04-2014	60x40x25	23-04-2063	ON
8. M/s Starstone Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd.	503/2012	3	54600	28-02-2029	Issued by DEIAA on 27-07-2016	80x 60x 18-20	21-01-2063	ON

¶37

¶38

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶39

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶40

9.	M/s Arunodaya Mining & Granites	09/2013	3	20000	31-08-2027	Issued by DEIAA on 27-07-2016	50x 40x 14	01-09-2063	ON
10.	M/s Chima Stones	50812/20	3	47040	30-04-2029	Issued by SEIAA on 19-05-2014	75x50x30	23-04-2063	ON
11.	M/s Suresh Mining Stone	54/2011	3	101052	30-04-2028	Issued by DEIAA on 27-07-2018	100x60x25	22-03-2062	ON
12.	M/s Shree Shyam Mines and Minerals	521/2012	3	179000	30-04-2027	Issued by DEIAA on 27-07-2016	55x30x15	25-04-2063	ON
_13. _	^{M/s Ramdev Stone &} Granite	55/2011	3	218547.5	28-02-2027	Issued by SEIAA on 20-09-2023	70x 100x40	01-03-2062	ON
14.	M/s Apex Minerals & Granite	13/2013	3	60000	30-11-2027	Issued by SEIAA on 19-05-2014	50x40x25	06-11-2064	ON
_15. _	M/s Shri Varinga Ram Bishnoi	48/2013	3	14014	30-06-2028	Issued by SEIAA on 27-02-2015	60x50x 10	13-05-2065	ON
_16. _	M/s Shree Maa Naganechiya Granties	44/2013	3	58800	31-08-2027	Issued by SEIAA on 30-04-2014	120x60x30	01-09-2064	ON
_17. _	M/s Krishna Granite & Minerals	12/2013	2.4901	50680	31-07-2027	Issued by SEIAA on 19-05-2016	70x40x25	30-07-2067	ON
_18. _	M/s Shree Jogmaya Granites	500/2012	1.1529	94046	30-11-2027	Issued by SEIAA on 16-05-2016	70x45x 15	10-12-2067	ON

¶41

¶42

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶43

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶44

b. Consent and mining lease status of 14 mining leases found non-operative or not in working condition-

¶45

S. *No.*	*Name of Mining Lease*	*ML No.*	*Area* *(in Ha)*	*Permitted* *production* *capacity (TPA)*	*CTO Validity*	*Environment* *Clearance* *Status*	*Dimensions of* *Mining Pit* *(LxBxD)*	*Mine lease* *validity*	*Status of* *Ravenna*
_1. _	M/s Jalu Ram Siyag	04/2013	3	20000	31-08-2022	Issued by DEIAA on 27-07-2016	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	09-04-2063	OFF
_2. _	M/s Shri Charbhuja Mines	504/2012	3	54600	30-06-2023	Issued by DEIAA on 27-07-2016	70x45xFilled with Water	21-01-2063	OFF
_3. _	M/s Shree Balaji Granites	489/2012	1	54600	31-05-2025	Issued by SEIAA on 19-05-2014	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	21-01-2063	ON
_4. _	M/s Hari Kripa Granites Pvt. Ltd.	530/2012	3	64439	30-09-2023	Issued by SEIAA on 20-03-2015	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	22-06-2065	OFF
_5. _	M/s Shri Bhagwati Granite Pvt. Ltd.	533/2012	3	64677	30-09-2023	Issued by SEIAA on 20-03-2015	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	22-06-2065	OFF
_6. _	M/s Shree Bhagwati Granite	531/2012	3	68026	30-09-2023	Issued by SEIAA on 19-03-2015	20x 15x08	22-06-2065	OFF
_7. _	M/s Tejomaya Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd.	28/2014	1.95	80000	30-06-2023	Issued by SEIAA on 19-05-2016	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	16-01-2068	OFF

¶46

¶47

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶48

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶49

_8. _	M/s Hari Kripa Granites Pvt. Ltd.	532/2012	3	80106	31-10-2023	Issued by SEIAA on 31-03-2015	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	22-06-2065	OFF
_9. _	M/s Bhagmal Marbal Pvt. Ltd.	17/2013	3	100617	31-05-2021	Issued by SEIAA on 20-02-2015	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	16-04-2065	OFF
_10. _	M/s Uddhav Granites Pvt. Ltd.	16/2013	3	100617	30-09-2023	Issued by SEIAA on 30-04-2015	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	22-06-2065	OFF
11.	M/s Tejomaya Nataural Resources Pvt. Ltd.	19/2014	3	178200	31-05-2023	Issued by SEIAA on 14-05-2015	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	24-05-2065	OFF
_12. _	M/s Gauri Mahesh Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd.	18/2014	3	178900	31-05-2023	Issued by SEIAA on 14-05-2015	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	24-05-2065	OFF
_13. _	M/s Gauri Mahesh Natural Resources Pvt. Ltd.	51/2011	3	179000	31-05-2023	Issued by SEIAA on 14-05-2015	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	01-03-2062	OFF
14.	M/s Shree Ambey Mines	35/2013	3	Yet to commence	Not Applied	Issued by SEIAA on 30-04-2014	NO ACTIVE RUNNING PIT	21-02-2068	OFF

¶50

¶51

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶52

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶53

c. Site observations made by the committee during the visit

¶54

S. *No.*	*Name of* *Mining* *Lease, ML* *No. & Area*	*Status of* *Operation*	*No. of trees* *found at* *mining* *lease* *(approx.)*	*Details of Air* *Pollution*	*Sampling Result*	*Other relevant information* *regarding the mine*	*Action Proposed* */Taken*
1.	M/s Apex Minerals & Granite, 13/2013 (3.0 Ha)	Operational	50 trees	Haul truck movement is the major source of dust emission.	PM10(gg/m3)- 92.0S02(pg/m3)-2.06 NOx(pg/m3)-3.86	Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out by the Board officials and monitoring report is enclosed with this inspection report. The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient.	Unit has been issued show cause notice under section 25/26 of Water Act 1974 and under section 21 of Air Act, 1981 for intended revocation of Consent to Operate.
2.	M/sChima Stones, 508/2012 (3.0 Ha)	Operational	150 trees	Haul truck movement is the major source of dust emission.	PM10(4/m3)-88 /m3)-1.88 S0204 NOx(pg/m3)-2.84	Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out by the Board officials and monitoring report is enclosed with this	--do--

¶55

¶56

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶57

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶58

Page 6 of 13

¶59

						inspection report. The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient.
3.	M/s Ramdev Stone & Granite, 55/2011 (3.0 Ha)	Operational	200 trees	Haul truck movement is the major source of dust emission.	PM 10(µg/m3)-92.0 S0204 N0x(.4m3)- 3.83	Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out by the Board officials and monitoring report is enclosed with this inspection report. The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient.	--do--
4.	M/s Shree Jogmaya Granites, 500/2012 (1.1529 Ha)	Operational	10 trees	Haul truck movement is the major source of dust emission.	PM 10(µg/m3)-95 S02(lig/m3)-1.26 NOx(11g/m3)-11.85	Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out by the Board officials and monitoring report is enclosed with this inspection report. The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient.	--do--

¶60

¶61

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶62

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶63

						Display board comprising of appropriate details were not found at the unit premises.
5.	M/s Shree Shyam Mines andMinerals, 521/2012 (3.0) Ha	Operational	80 trees	Haul truck movement is the major source of dust emission.	PM10(pg/m3)-94 S0204/m3)-NT NOx(i.ig/m3)-3.24	1. Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out by the Board officials and monitoring report is enclosed with this inspection report. 2.) The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient.	--do--
6.	M/s Starstone Marble & Granites Pvt. Ltd., 03/2012	Operational	50 trees	Haul truck movement is the major source of dust emission.	PM10(pg/m3)-86 S02(pg/m3)-2.30 NOx(pg/m3)-2.39	I.) Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out by the Board officials and monitoring report is enclosed with this inspection report.	--do--

¶64

¶65

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶66

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶67

	(3.0 Ha)					2.) The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient.
7.	M/s Suresh Mining Stone, 54/2011 (3.0 Ha)	Operational	152 trees	Haul truck movement is the major source of dust emission.	PM10(pg/m3)-90 S02(pg/m3)-2.20 NOx(pg/m3)-1.23	1. Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out by the Board officials and monitoring report is enclosed w The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient.	--do--
8.	M/s Arunodaya Mining & Granites, 09/2013	Operational	50 trees	Haul truck movement is the major source of dust emission.	PM 10(µg/m3)-14$ NOx(pg/m3)-4.23- 1..8823	I.) Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out by the Board officials and monitoring report is enclosed with this inspection report.	--do--

¶68

¶69

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶70

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶71

(3.0 Ha)	2.) Water sprinkling on haul roads for dust suppression was not found	2. The Particulate Matter (PM 10) (size less than 10 microns) pollutant was found beyond the permissiblelimit as laid down in National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 3. Water Sprinkling in the mining lease area was not fou 4. The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient. Display board comprising of appropriate details were not found at the unit premises.

¶72

¶73

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶74

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶75

9.	M/s Avinash Granite Pvt. Ltd., 501/2012 (3.0 Ha)	Operational	20 trees	Haul truck movement is the major source of dust emission. Water sprinkling on haulroads for dust suppression wasnot found	PM10(pg/m3)-138 SO2(pg/m3)-2.24 NOx(pg/m3)-4.86	I.) Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out by the Board officials and monitoring report is enclosed with this inspection report. 2.) The Particulate Matter (PM 10) (size less than 10 microns) pollutant was found beyond the permissible limit as laid down in National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 3. Water Sprinkling in the mining lease area was not fou The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient.	--do--
10.	M/s Jay Shiv Stone,	Operational	75 trees	1 . Haul truck movement is the major source of	PM10(4g/m3)-176 S020.tg/m3)-1.26	1. Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out	--do-- --do--

¶76

¶77

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶78

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶79

11/201 (3.01Hla)	emission. 2 . Water sprinkling on haulroads for dus	NOx(}.tg/m3)-2.35	by the Board officials andmon 2. The Particulate Matter (PM10) (size less than 10 microns) pollutant was found beyond the permissiblelimit as laid down in National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 3. Water Sprinkling in the mining lease area was not fou 4. The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient. 5. Displayboard comprising of details were not found at the unit premises. 1. Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out by the Board officials and monitoring reportis enclosed w 2. The Particulate Matter (PM10) (size less than 10 microns) pollutant was found beyond the permissiblelimit as laid down in National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 3. Water Sprinkling in the mining lease area was not fou

¶80

¶81

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶82

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶83

						The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient.
11.	M/s Krishna Granite & Minerals, 12/2013 (2.4901 Ha)	Operational	100 trees	Haultruck movement is the major ource of emission. Water sprinkling on haulroads for	PM10(p.g/m3)- l 48 S02(iig/m3)-1.27 NOx(pg/m3)-2 64.
12.	M/s Shree Maa Naga echiya Granties, 44/2013 (3.0 Ha)	Operational	128 trees	1 . Haul truck movement is the major source of emission. 2 . Water sprinkling on haulroads for dust found	PM1m3 ) -145 04.1g/ 302{µg/m3)- NTNOx(pg/m3)-2.87	1. Ambient Air quality monitoring and Noise monitoring was carried out by the Board officials and monitoring report is enclosed with this inspection report. 2. The Particulate Matter (PM 10) (size less than 10 microns) pollutant was found beyond the	--do--

¶84

¶85

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶86

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶87

				permissible limit as laid down in National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 3. Water Sprinkling in the mining lease area was not found in the unit premises. The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient.
13. M/s Jai Vijay Mines & Minerals, 519/2012 (3.0 Ha)	Non- operational	05 trees Nosource of air pollution was found during the visit.	Sampling was not carried out as unit was non- operational	1. The unit representative informed that the mining activity was shut down since 2022. 2. Unit representative was directed to increase plantation before the commencement of mining activity.	Unit has been issued a letter with directions to install and make necessary arrangements before the commencement of

¶88

¶89

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶90

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶91

					Display board comprising of appropriate details were not found at the unit premises.	Mining Activity.
14. M/s Panna Misri Granite, 33/2013 (3.0 Ha)	Non- operational	150 trees	1 . Haul truck movement is the major source of dust emission however during si operationaland no found. D.G. Set- 01 No. of capacity 125 KVA with acoustic enclosure and inadequate stake height was found installed in unit premises.	Sampling was not carried out as unit was non- operational.	This unit was the place where the incident of death of 3 workers took place. The tree plantation in the unit was found insufficient. The D.G set (125 KVA) without prior Consent to Establish and Operate from the State Board.	--do--

¶92

¶93

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶94

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶95

15.	Name of Mining Lense, ML No. & Area M/s Shri Shiv Mines Minerals, and 47/2011 (3.0 Ha	No source of air pollution was found during the visit.	Sampling was not carried out as unit was non- operational.	1.) The unit representative informed that the mining activity was shut down since year 2022. 2.) Unit representative was directed to increase plantation before the commencement of mining activity.	--do--
16.	M/s Thakur Shri Granite Pvt Lid, 514/2012 (3.0 Ha)	No source of air pollution was found during the visit.	Sampling was not carried out as unit was non- operational.	1.) The unit representative informed that the mining activity was closed one year back. 2.) Unit representative was directed to increase plantation before the commencement of mining activity.	--do--

¶96

¶97

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶98

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶99

17.	M/s Shri Varinga Ram Bishnoi, 48/2013 (3.0) Ha)	Haul truck movement is the major source of dust emission however during site visit unit was non- operational and no truck movement was found.	Sampling was not carried out as unit was non- operational.	The unit was found non- operational during the visit due to shortage of labour as reported by the unit representative. The units tree plantation was found insufficient.	--do--
18.	M/s Tirupati Granite Minerals, & 524/2012 13.0 Ha)	No source of air pollution was found during the visit.	Sampling was not carried out as unit was non- operational.	1.) The unit representative informed that the mining activity was not being carried out due to shortage of labour since Holi festival in March 2024. 2.) Unit representative was directed to increase plantation before the commencement of mining activity.	--do--

¶100

¶101

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶102

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶103

3. General Observations made during the visit

¶104

a) Approach Road to the mines for the transportation of mineral was hard surfaced with Murrum.

¶105

b) No illegal mining was observed during the visit.

¶106

c) No blasting activity was observed. Tthe mining of granite blokes is being done with the help of wet drilling and block cutting is being done by wire saw with water.

¶107

d) Mining is being done in pits and no ground water table was found intersected.

¶108

e) Plantation provided in the mining lease are collectively.

¶109

f) Air monitoring of mines was also conducted by the Regionald the prescribe the State Board during the visit. Results of 05 mining units were found to exceed the prescribed limit therefore during the visit Res there issued to these units. Analysis Reports of Air Monitoring are annexed.

¶110

4. Specific observations cum actions regarding safety measures taken on the mining units are as under:

¶111

1. A notice of opening of the mines mentioned in the instant Application except Granite Mine (ML. No. 33/2013) of Mis Panna Misri Granite (Respondent No. 11) was not submitted to this Directorate in Form-f of the first schedule by the owner, agent or manager of the said mines as required under Regulation 3 of The Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 real with section 16 of the Mines Act, 1952. Hence, the operation of said mines was not in the knowledge of this Directorate and were not inspected by an officer of this Directorate. Notice of opening of Granite Mine (ML. No. 33/2013) of M/s Panna Misri Granite was submitted after occurrence of the accident that occurred on 21.02.2024.

¶112

2. As per available records at this office, it is stated that-

¶113

(a) no permission for deploying Heavy Earth Moving Machinery with or without deep hole drilling and blasting has been granted to the mines mentioned in the instant Application by this Directorate as required under

¶114

¶115

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶116

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶117

Regulation 106(2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, and

¶118

(b) a duly qualified manager was also not appointed at the mines mentioned in the instant Application for management, control, direction and supervision of mining activities as required under Regulation 34 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 read with section 17 of the Mines Act, 1952.

¶119

3. A notice of opening of the Granite Mine (ML, No. 33/2013) of M/s Panna Misri Granite was not submitted to this Directorate in Form-1 of the first schedule by the owner, agent or manager as required under Regulation 3 of The Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 read with section 16 of the Mines Act, 1952 before the occurrence of the said accident. Therefore, the operation of Granite Mine (ML No. 33/2013) was not in the knowledge of this Directorate

¶120

4 First information of accident was received over phone to this Directorate at about 1 PM on 21.02.2024 through Shri Dheeraj Panwar, Mining Engineer, Department of Mines & Geology, Sojat City, Pali, that a fatal accident occurred at about 10 AM on 21.02.2024 in a Granite Mine (ML. No. 33/2013) falling in Sakadara village, Tahsil & District Pali, Rajasthan State and belonging to M/s Panna Misri Granite. On getting information, officer of this Directorate reached the site of accident at about 7.00 PM on 21.02.2024. It was learnt that three workers were killed and one worker was seriously injured.

¶121

5. After inspection and enquiry into the fatal accident occurred at the Granite Mine (ML. No 33/2013) of M/s Panna Miszi Granite on 21.02.2024 and 22.02. 2024, an order under section 22(3) of the Mines Act, 1952 was imposed vide this Directorate's letter no AJR/DMS/22(3)/2024/286 dated 27.02.2024 prohibiting deployment of work persons for extraction of Mineral in the mine till the order is vacated except rectification work as per terms of the said order. Detailed enquiry of the said accident is under progress. The copy of order by the Directorate vide letter dated 27.02.2024 prohibiting deployment of work persons is annexed as Annexure-12

¶122

¶123

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶124

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶125

6. The sides in the Granite Mine (ML. No. 33/2013) of M/s Panna Misri Granite were not kept adequately benched, sloped or secured so as to prevent danger from fall of sides as required under Regulation 106 (3) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961. Loose stones. boulders and debris were not allowed to remain within a distance of three meters from the edge of the excavation as required under Regulation 106 (4) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 The operations carried on in connection with the Granite Mine (ML. No. 33/2013) of M/s Panna Misri Granite were not being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, and of the Regulations, and Rules made there-under. Statutory personnel like Mine Foremen/ Mining mates were not appointed for adequate inspection and thorough supervision at the said mine as required under Regulations 37 & 39 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 read with Regulation 116 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961. An engineer was not appointed at the said mine to hold the general charge of the machinery at the mine and to be responsible for its installation, maintenance and safe working as required under Regulation 36 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961. Blasting was not being carried out at the mine as stated by the mine owner.

¶126

7. The dynamics of issuance of Consent to Operate, granting of mining lease, obtaining mining plan, issue of explosive license, violation of environment norms/laws, environment compensation and illegal mining do not fall under the purview of the Mines Act, 1952 8. The onus to ensure safety, health and welfare of workers employed in mines rests with the mine owner and agent(person, whether appointed as such or not, who acts or purports to act on behalf of the owner) of the mine, which is clearly laid down in Section 18(1) and 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952, which quote that: -18(1) The owner and agent of every mine shall each be responsible for making financial and other provisions and for taking such other steps as may be necessary for compliance with the provisions of this Act, and the Regulations, Rules, bye-laws and orders made there-under." 18(4) The owner, agent and manager of every mine shall each be

¶127

¶128

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶129

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶130

responsible to see that all operations carried on in connection with the mine are conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and of the Regulations, Rules, bye-laws and orders made there-under.

¶131

9. Eighteen mines were found in working condition. Out of 18 operative mines, an order under section 22(3) of the Mines Act, 1952 was already imposed at Granite Mine (ML. No. 33/2013) of M/s Panna Misri Granite as mentioned above. It was learnt that at present, blasting was not being carried out at the said mines. During inspection of remaining 23 mines, certain contraventions under the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and regulations and rules made thereunder were observed. Mine owners were addressed to rectify the said contraventions. The details of action taken at the said 32 granite mines mentioned in the instant application are annexed.

¶132

10. The committee has also directed the mines owner to comply with the State Board's and Mines department's conditions and submit regular compliance to Mines & Safety department, so as to prevent any accident in future.

¶133

5. Action taken/ further actions-

¶134

a) Show cause notices for intended revocation of Consent to Operate under section 21 of Air Act, 1981 and under section 25/26 of Water Act, 1974 have been issued on 17.05.2024 to the aforementioned mining leases for non-compliances observed during the visit. Mining Lease holders had submitted the reply of these notices. The mining lease holders were directed to follow the safety norms during the mining activity and make necessary arrangements to avoid all hazards and other safety related issues.”

¶135

Notices were also issued against the respondents and in reply thereof learned counsel for the Mines Safety, Ajmer Region, Rajasthan has submitted that :-

¶136

i. That the onus to ensure safety, health and welfare of workers employed in mines rests with the mine owner and agent (person

¶137

¶138

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶139

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶140

whether appointed as such or not, who acts or purports to act on behalf of the owner) of the mine, which is clearly laid down in Section 18(1) and 18(4) of the Mines Act, 1952, which quote that:

¶141

"18(1) The owner and agent of every mine shall each be responsible for making financial and other provisions and for taking such other steps as may be necessary for compliance with the provisions of this Act, and the Regulations, Rules, bye-laws and orders made thereunder."

¶142

"18(4) The owner, agent and manager of every mine shall each be responsible to see that all operations carried on in connection with the mine are conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and of the Regulations, Rules, bye-laws and orders made there-under."

¶143

ii. That, a notice of opening of the mines mentioned in the instant Application except Granite Mine (ML No. 33/2013) of M/s Panna Misri Granite (Respondent No. 11) was not submitted to this Directorate in Form-1 of the first schedule by the owner, agent or manager of the said mines as required under Regulation 3 of The Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 read with section 16 of the Mines Act, 1952. Hence, the operation of said mines was not in the knowledge of this Directorate and were not inspected by an officer of his Directorate. Notice of opening NT OF INDIA of Granite Mine (ML No. 33/2013) of M/s Panna Misri Granite was submitted after occurrence of the accident that occurred on 21.02.2024.

¶144

iii. That, the available records further indicate that (a) no permission for deploying Heavy Earth Moving Machinery with or without deep hole drilling and blasting has been granted to the mines mentioned in the

¶145

¶146

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶147

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶148

instant Application by this Directorate as required under Regulation 106(2)(b) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, and (b)a duly qualified manager was also not appointed at the mines mentioned in the instant Application for management, control, direction and supervision of mining activities as required under Regulation 34 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 read with section 17 of the Mines Act, 1952.

¶149

iv. That, it is submitted that a notice of opening of the Granite Mine (ML No. 33/2013) of M/s Panna Misri Granite was not submitted to this Directorate in Form-I of the first schedule by the owner, agent or manager as required under Regulation 3 of The Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 read with section 16 of the Mines Act, 1952 before the occurrence of the said accident. Therefore, the operation of Granite Mine (ML No. 33/2013) was not in the knowledge of this Directorate.

¶150

v. That, first information of accident was received over phone to this Directorate at about 1 pm on 21.02.2024 through Shri Dheeraj Pawar, Mining Engineer, Department of Mines & Geology, Sojat City, Pali, that a fatal accident occurred at about 10 am on 21.02.2024 in a Granite Mine (ML. No. 33/2013) falling in Sakdara village, Tahsil & District Pali, Rajasthan State and belonging to M/s Panna Misri Granite. On getting information, an officer of this Directorate reached the site of accident at about 7.00 pm on 21.02.2024. It was learnt that three workers were killed and one worker was seriously injured.

¶151

vi. That, after inspection and enquiry by an officer of this Directorate, an order under section 22(3) of the Mines Act, 1952 was imposed vide this Directorate's letter no. AJR/DMS/22(3)/2024/286 dated 27.02.2024 prohibiting deployment of work persons for extraction of Mineral in the mine till the order is vacated except rectification work

¶152

¶153

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶154

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶155

as par terms of the said order. Detailed enquiry of the said accident is under progress.

¶156

vii. That, it is further submitted that the sides in the Granite Mine (ML No. 33/2013) of M/s Panna Misri Granite were not kept adequately benched, sloped or secured so as to prevent danger from fall of sides as required under Regulation 106 (3) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961.Loose stones, boulders and debris were not allowed to remain within a distance of three meters from the edge of the excavation as required under Regulation 106 (4) of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961. The operations carried on in connection with the Granite Mine (ML. No. 33/2013) of M/s Panna Misri Granite were not being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, and of the Regulations, and Rules made there-under. Statutory personnel like Mine Foremen/ Mining mates were not appointed for adequate inspection and thorough supervision at the said mine as required under Regulations 37 & 39 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 read with Regulation 116 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961. An engineer was not appointed at the said mine to hold the general charge of the machinery at the mine and to be responsible for its installation, maintenance and safe working as required under Regulation 36 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961. Blasting was not being carried out at the mine as stated by the mine owner.”

¶157

Respondent no. 20 has filed the reply with the facts that contents of the application does not pertain to the present respondent and respondents have been wrongly impleaded in this petition. It is further submitted that the answering respondent is having valid consent to operate with validity

¶158

¶159

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶160

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶161

upto 30.04.2028 and environmental clearance from SEIAA as reported in the joint committee report.

¶162

The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 11 are to the fact that no such accident has ever took place in the mining lease of the answering respondent. Further that the family members of the victim of the accident have been reasonably compensated as report submitted by the joint committee.

¶163

FIR has already been registered bearing FIR no. 40/2024 dated 21.02.2024. It is further submitted that the Directorate General Mines Safety, Ajmer Region, Rajasthan vide letter no. 26.06.2024 has approved scheme for rectification of defects as mentioned in prohibitory order imposed under Section 22(3). It is further argued that the incident took place in the mining lease of the respondent was an unfortunate event and the respondent has paid Rs. 16.25 lakh as compensation to the family members of each of the deceased employee and a total of Rs. 48,75,000/and Rs. 10,000/- to the injured employee in the presence of District Administration. The copy of the agreement regarding payment of compensation to the family of deceased employees has been annexed with the report of the joint committee

¶164

It is further submitted that there are no violations of environmental norms and the directions issued by the Directorate General Mines Safety, Ajmer Region, Rajasthan was regularly complied with and monitored.

¶165

The Ministry of Laboure, Directorate General Mines Safety, Ajmer vide letter dated 26.06.2024 has approved the scheme of rectification of defects as mentioned in prohibitory orders imposed under Section 22(3) of The Mines Act, 1952.

¶166

Respondent nos. 1 and 4, Mining Department has filed the reply with the fact that workers of respondent no. 11 were carrying out unsigned and

¶167

¶168

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶169

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶170

unsafe mining and after spot inspection the Mining Department has taken proper action under Rule 9(2) of the Rajasthan Minor and Mineral Concession Rules, 2017.

¶171

It is further submitted that :-

¶172

i. “Granite Mining Lease (ML) No. 33/2013, located in Village Sakdara, Tehsil and District Pali, was originally granted to M/s Padam Shree Granite under order no. ME/Sojat/MINOR/CC/ML/33/13/5613 dated 30.08.2013 for an arca of 3.00 hectares, with an annual dead rent of Rs 1,20,000/-, for a period of 30 years from the date of registration. The lease was executed on 17.10.2013 and registered on 18.10.2013. Under Rule 9(2) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, the lease period was automatically extended to 50 years, until 17.10.2063.

¶173

ii. The original lessee, M/s Padam Shree Granite, for transfer of the mining lease to M/s Panna Mishri Granite submitted transfer application on 31.08.2015. The partners of M/s Panna Mishri Granite included Shri Gulab Singh Lodha II.U.F., Shri Rajesh Jain II.U.F., and others. The transfer was approved by the Mining Engineer, Sojat City, vide order no. ME/ SOJAT / MINOR / ML /33/13/2033 dated 06.11.2015. The transfer lease deed was executed and registered on 18.11.2015 and 18.12.2015, respectively.

¶174

iii. On 21.02.2024, a tragic incident occurred at the mining site resulting in the death of three workers due to the slipping of a 25-tonne granite rock caused by mining drilling vibrations. The incident was reported in the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper on 22.02.2024. The then Mining Engineer and Senior Mines foreman conducted an on-site inspection and prepared a inspection report. It was found that six workers were injured, with three succumbing to their injuries on the spot. The police were involved, and immediate medical aid was provided to the injured workers. A notice to cease mining operations was issued on the same day.

¶175

¶176

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶177

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶178

iv. Various notices and letters were issued following the incident. A notice dated 22.02.2024 was sent to the lessee to stop mining operations, and a proposal for stopping mining work was sent to the Superintending Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, on the same date. Reports and notices were also sent to the Director, Mines and Geology Department, Udaipur, and the Director of Mine Safety, Ajmer. Approval to stop mining operations was received on 01.03.2024 from the Superintending Mining Engineer, Jodhpur. Copics of these documents include the Approval to Stop Mining Work dated 01.03.2024.

¶179

v. Under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017, the lessee is required to employ qualified persons such as mine managers, mining engineers, or geoscientists to supervise mining operations. Despite notices and directives issued on various dates, the lessee failed to comply with these requirements. Consequently, multiple communications and directives were issued to ensure compliance with safety and environmental standards.

¶180

vi. Following the incident, a committee of four officers was constituted by the order of the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone, Bhopal, to inspect the 32 mining leases in the area, assess pollution control measures, and ensure labor safety. The committee was directed to submit its report within six weeks.”

¶181

The submission of the Respondent no. 23 is to the fact that the joint committee has not found any irregularity or violation of environmental norms by the respondent no. 23 and that the consent to operate is valid upto 28.02.2027 and Environment Clearance have been granted by the SEIAA.

¶182

In view of the facts as submitted by the joint committee report and the submission of the respondent a reasonable compensation to the tune of

¶183

¶184

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶185

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶186

Rs. 16.25 lakh to the each of the deceased employees/family have been paid in addition to 10 lakhs to the injured employees.

¶187

Directorate General Mines Safety, Ajmer has taken proper care and closure order has been issued and thereafter defects have been removed and remedial measures have been taken by the authorities concerned.

¶188

So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, we think that at preliminary stage a reasonable compensation has been awarded and if anyone is aggrieved then they can approach before appropriate forum for enhancement of quantity of compensation with relevant facts and evidence. We are of the view not to proceed further, in light of the facts that reasonable compensation has been awarded.

¶189

With these observations Original Application No. 49/2024 stands

¶190

disposed of.

¶191

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶192

Dr. A Senthil Vel, EM

¶193

05^th August, 2024 O.A No. 49/2024(CZ) PN

¶194

¶195

OA No. 49/2024(CZ)

¶196

Devidas Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Devidas Khatri v. Collector Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devidas Khatri v. Collector Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Tamanna Maini vs the State of Punjab through the Principal Secretary of Local Government Department

Narayan Sharma vs

Shardul R Chouhan vs M.P Pollution Control Board

Saleem Mohammed Bagwan vs Chief Secretary

Jmt Arjun and Adarsh Enterprises vs Medicare Environmental Management Pvt. Ltd.

Restorehealth Medicare Private Limited vs Madhya Pradesh State Environment Assessment Authority (Mpseiaa) through the Member Secretary E-5 Paryavaran Parisar Bhawan Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.)

News Item Titled "Rajasthan News Awaidh Khanan Par Ankush Lagane Ke Liye Sarkar Gambhir Karvai Ke Baad Bhi Nhi Ruk Raha Hai Bajri Khanan" Appearing in Amar Ujala Dated 30.01.2024 vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board

Sunil Dutt vs Municipal Council Gurdaspur

Shardul R Chouhan vs M.P Pollution Control Board

Saleem Mohammed Bagwan vs Chief Secretary

Vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Jitendra Singh Rai vs State of Madhya Pradesh through District Magistrate

Sumit Beng vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Ashish Rai vs State of Madhya Pradesh