In S.L.P.(C) No. 21211 of 2012-SC- Top Court directs constitution of Expert Committee for studying environmental pollution & impact on Chittorgarh Fort from blasting operations; restricts mining by blasting within 5 km radius
Justices Sanjiv Khanna & S.V.N. Bhatti [12-01-2024]

Read Order: BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR v. BHANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 15, 2024: While observing that Rajasthan’s Chittorgarh Fort, a heritage monument, must be maintained and preserved under all the circumstances, the Top Court has held that 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.

The matter, before the Division Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, revolved around the Chittorgarh Fort which is a notified monument and also a notified UNESCO World Heritage Site. 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.

One Shri Thakur Umed Singh Rathore filed a PIL 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 was 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 would leave only the remnants of the Chittorgarh Fort to the succeeding generations.

After this petition was disposed of, the other Respondents also filed a PIL before the High Court of Rajasthan against the Union of India through Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)/Respondent No. 7 and others with the prayer to protect the Fort & stop blasting within a radius of ten kilometres from the Fort.

Disposing of this PIL, the Court had directed that no mining activities and blasting would take place within 10 kms from the fort wall. The mining leases granted within 10 kms from fort wall were cancelled. The Birla Cement as well as other mine holders were directed to make payment of compensation to the tune of Rs 5 crore out of which, 90% was to be paid by Birla Cement and the remaining amount had to be paid by other mine holders involved in blasting.

Hence, Petitioner-Birla Cement filed a SLP. The petitioner Company, possessing a mining lease for 598.98 hectares at a distance of about 4.5 kilometres from the boundary of the Chittorgarh Fort, challenged the directions issued by the High Court whereby the 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.

The Court had also directed the Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee (CBRI), 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.

It was the case of the petitioner that the mining operations undertaken by the it are safe and do not cause a debilitating effect on the structures in the Chittorgarh Fort. It was submitted that 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).

The Bench, at the outset, observed, “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.”

The Bench was 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 was not in line with the Report of the Ministry of Coal and Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Mining Research Cell.

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 Bench held while also adding that 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”, the Bench further held.

The Top Court 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 have been a few factors recorded in the report that have contributed 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 ASI”, the Bench said.

In light of such discussions and observations, the Bench issued the following directions-

• 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.
• Respondent No. 8 is directed to ensure strict implementation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. Respondents Nos. 8 and 12 are directed to issue orders within four weeks 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 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.
• 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] constitutes an Expert Committee of multi-disciplinary experts.

The Bench concluded the matter by accepting the statement of the Petitioner 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.