National Green Tribunal
News Item Published In The Newspaper The ... vs . Member Secretary, Central Pollution ... on 23 January, 2023
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 04 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(By Hybrid Mode)
Original Application No. 846/2022
(With report dated 05.01.2023)
In re: News report published in the Newspaper The Hindu dated
15.11.2022 titled "Stone quarry collapses in Mizoram, 12 feared
dead"
Date of hearing: 23.01.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Respondent(s): Mr. Veenit Kumar, Superintendent of Police,
Mr. Ralte Lalremsanga, District Collector, Hnahthial
with Mr. Siddesh Kotwal, Advocate for the State of Mizoram
Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Advocate for MoEF & CC
Mr. Aman Bhalla, Advocate for CPCB
Mr. Pinaki Misra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Khanna & Ms.
Deepali Bhanot, Advocates for ABCI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (PP)
ORDER
1. This matter has been put up in the light of media report titled "Stone quarry collapses in Mizoram, 12 feared dead", to the effect that as a consequence of collapse of slope in Hnahthial District, Mizoram, 12 persons, who were the workers engaged by ABCI Infrastructure Private Limited, the project proponent (PP), died.
2. Vide letter dated 16.11.2022, the Registry gave advance notice of today's hearing to CPCB, State PCB, Regional Officer, MoEF&CC, Shillong, Mining Department and the PP. The matter was thereafter taken up on 28.11.2022 and since requisite remedial measures had not been taken, including disbursement of compensation to the victims and fixing accountability of the PP for preventive and remedial measures, the 1 Tribunal constituted a joint Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Mizoram with other members being Regional Officer, MoEF&CC, Shillong Regional Officer, CPCB, Shillong, District Magistrate, Hnahthial, Member Secretary, State PCB, State Disaster Management Authority, Secretary, Geology and Mining Department, Mizoram, nominee of Petroleum, Explosives Safety Organization (PESO), nominee of Chief Controller of Explosive, Nagpur and nominee of IIT Dhanbad to furnish a factual and action taken report with further recommendations to prevent such disasters in future.
3. The PP preferred Civil Appeal No(s). 90/2023, ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. vs. Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board & Ors. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein order dated 16.01.2023 has been passed as follows:-
"Learned senior advocate for the appellant has drawn our attention to annexure - A-22 and states that the compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 would be Rs. 2,63,35,425/-, which is more than the amount quantified by the National Green Tribunal in the impugned order. The grievance of the appellant is that in case the payment is made in terms of the impugned order, the insurance company may deny their liability under the terms of the policy.
It is stated that in the proceedings fixed before the Lok Adalat on 17.01.2023, the issue of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, is likely to be resolved.
Issue notice, returnable in the month of April, 2023.
Notice may be served by all modes, including dasti.
In the meanwhile, there would be stay of operation of the impugned order to the extent of payment of compensation. This stay order, however, would not bar the proceedings pending before the Lok Adalat for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923."
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the PP and State of Mizoram and perused the record. In view of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we refrain 2 from dealing with the issue of compensation for the employees/workmen/victims who have died or injured. It is undisputed that issue of compensation for damage to environment is open to be gone into.
5. The joint Committee, constituted by the Tribunal, has filed its report on 05.01.2023, apart from the reply by the State of Mizoram and the PP on 19.01.2023. We may refer to the said three reports/responses.
6. The report of the joint Committee mentions the factual position of the incident, extent of damage and remedial action. The relevant extract from the report are as follows:-
"III. FACTUAL REPORT BASED ON THE INSPECTION CONDUCTED
1. Cause of the incident:
The incident happened on 14th November, 2022 at 2:40 PM at Maudarh Quarry which is around 30kms from Hnahthial Town. ABCI Infrastrusture Pvt. Ltd has been using the quarry for extraction of stone and boulders for upgrading and widening of NH-54 (package 4).
According to the report of the District Magistrate, Hnahthial District, the incident happened while routine operation was being done by a number of workers. As there was no record of raining and earthquake since at least two weeks before till the time of the collapse, natural calamities may not be considered as the prime cause. The site of the quarry and surrounding land appeared dry and normal and found to be favourable for quarry work at and before the time of collapse.
Based on the reports submitted by M/s. ABCI infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., along with statements of the persons injured and photographs of the site, the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives (PESO) also remarked that the depth of the stone quarry seems deep and area seems composed of weak material resting on steep slope and overburdened. The landslide might have occurred due to the force of gravity, that is the gravitational force might have become more than the internal strength of the soil area.
It is further stated by the District Magistrate, Hnahthial District that extraction of stones and boulders has been done by using 3 drilling and blasting method with explosives. There seemed to be an indiscriminate drilling and blasting in order to extract stone and boulder as much as possible at a time, which led to excessive vibration to the quarry and its surrounding making the stability of quarry stone more vulnerable to collapse day by day. Moreover, it has been observed that extraction of stone has not been done step by step from the superficial layer starting from the top of the quarry downward, rather the extraction has been done excessively at the base that made the upper part more unstable and eventually led to collapse of the quarry.
As per the findings of Department of Geology & Mining and Disaster Management & Rehabilitation Department, G.O.M, several points relating to the cause of the incident are listed below:
1) It is observed that blasting for extraction was performed at the toe (lowest portion) of the extraction face, while at the same time overburden was just above the extraction face, which was not properly pre-excavated, thus weakening the ultimate foundation for all the above strata and layers of mineral/rock and overburden. This faulty extraction plan could be another factor of the collapse.
2) It is evident from the video footages covering the live extraction work and the realtime collapsed of the Maudarh Quarry that non-maintenance of proper slope angle and adequate benches appears to be another triggering factor of the collapse.
3) The M/S ABCI Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. nor its sub-
contractor i.e. G.P. Projects Ltd approached the Dte. of Geology & Mining (DGM), Govt, of Mizoram for preparation of Blast Design nor submitted Explosive License which is pre-requisite for any blasting operation for a particular use in any respective mine/quarry. Excessive amount of explosive was charged and blasted without any authorized and wellplanned blast design which then resulted in the destabilizing the overburden slope above the main extraction site due to enormous blast induced vibration. This seemed to eventually trigger the collapse.
4) No overburden and mineral benches were maintained on the east side of the mine/ quarry and the high wall vary from 30 - 50 m which is in violation of Reg. 106 of Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961.
There is no Mining Plan/ Extraction Plan available for winning the mineral /stones. No such application has been submitted to the Nodal Department viz. Dte. of Geology & Mining (DGM), Govt. of Mizoram.
4There is no Blast Design prepared for using explosives and blasting in this Stone Quarry.
2. Extent of damage
1) The total area covered by the collapse is approximately 5000 Sq.m The huge debris buried 12 people to death. All the dead bodies were recovered, the last dead body being recovered by 2nd December 2022.
As per the inquest conducted by Superintendent of Police, Hnahthial District, the deceased were identified as follows:
(i) Buddhadeb Mondal (25) s/o Sunil Mondal, Nadia, West Bengal\
(ii) Rakhesh Biswas (21) s/o Kalu Biswas, Nadia, West Bengal
(iii) Sorojit Roy (26) s/o Situ Roy, Cachar, Assam
(iv) Subrata Raptan (24) s/o Shymal Raptan, Khalikhula, West Bengal
(v) Madan Das (25) s/o Sonatai Das, Nadia, West Bengal
(vi) Omprakash Kumar (18) s/o Dalchand Mahato, Manamat, Chalra, Jharkhand
(vii) Mintu Mandal (22) s/o Madhusudn Mandal, Tehatla, Nadia, West Bengal
(viii) Khemrul Kumar (22) s/o Murli Mehto, Manamat; Chatra, Jharkhan
(ix) Ajoy Chakma (25) s/o Rangachand Chakma, Khojaisuri, Lunglei District, Mizoram
(x) Shifiqul Islam (26) s/o Muzahar Ali, Goalpara, Assam
(xi) Jahidur Islam (27) s/o Samsul Haque, Satrakanara, Assam
(xii) Kahamrai (49) s/o Sobroto (L), Zawlpui, Lunglei District, Mizoram After autopsy and other necessary protocols were done, all the deceased were taken to their respective family at their respective hometown. There was no report of any injury of the workers other than the death of 12 people.
Further, the following Plant and Machineries at site were also completely damaged by the landslide.
Such Plant and Machineries were:
1) Five (5) no. of Excavator
2) Two (2) no. of ROC (Compressor)
3) One (1) Terex Crusher The loss incurred to the machineries so far in the quarry collapse is estimated to be approximately Rs 15 Crores.
IV. DEFAULTER / PERSON RESPONSIBLE:
5The Police investigation on the incident is still underway and the investigation report based on findings will include defaulter / person responsible V. ACTION REQUIRED /REMEDIAL ACTION ADOPTED TO PREVENT SUCH INCIDENT IN FUTURE:
1. Actions by the State Government:-
In view of the current situation, the following remedial action may be taken by the State Government:
(1) Directorate of Geology and Mining (DGM) should prepare Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for stone quarry for the whole State of Mizoram for strict compliance by the quarry owner, majority of who are ignorant about modern legislation or laws regarding explosive, mining method, legislation, etc. SOP will be in local language and English.
(2) Directorate of Geology and Mining (DGM) should also prepare DO's and Don'ts to be followed in use of explosive, storage, security, etc. and while blasting quarry in local language and English (3) To strengthen institutional mechanism by recruiting more Mining Engineer (from existing 2 in the Directorate office) to at least 5 and 1 Geologist Junior to be attached to the office of Deputy Commissioner to supervise and ensure compliance of extant statute. At present, the two Mining Engineer viz. Deputy Controller of Mines and Assistant Controller of Mines are given charge of Aizawl District and Saitual District only, while the other a districts are under the charge of Geologist who have no knowledge of mining engineering. There are valid 468 quarries in 2021-2022 in the State and it suspected that there are equal numbers of illegal quarry. At present, there are only 10 permanent Mining Check Gate and 13 Mobile Check Gate.
2. Proposed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Quarry:
(1) Directorate of Geology and mining is the sole authority which is competent to grant Mining Lease/Mining Permit and its renewal, levy rate of royalty, fine, etc. as per the provisions of the Mizoram Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2000 (As amended from time to time).
(2) For extraction of stone, there should not be any dispute on ownership of land from where stone is to be extracted. The owners should ensure that all necessary prior environmental clearance from Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department and consents from Pollution Control Board are obtained for quarrying.
(3) No extraction of stone or its transportation will be permitted if the owner did not pay non-tax resume (Royalty, etc.) even if the period is covered by Mining 'Lease/Mining Permit.6
(4) Fine will be imposed for non-submission of Annual Return (Form-J), Quarterly Return (Form-I) and Monthly Return (Form-H).
(5) If the area of the land where stone is to be extracted is more than 4 Ha or the quantity of stone to be extracted/quarried/mined exceeds 3000 cubic metre or in equal measure, short term Mining Permit cannot be issued instead the owner should apply for Mining Lease.
(6) If the owner of the quarry planned to extract stone using mining lease, the owner should submit application for preparation of Mining Plan, Blasting Design, safety guidelines to DGM. The documents so issued by the competent authority should be strictly adhered to by the owner of quarry and noncompliance will result in cancellation of Mining Lease/Mining Permit.
Quarrying/Mining should be executed with least damage to the environment. If 1 (one) tree is cleared due to quarrying, the owner should plant 2 (two) in lieu of the damaged tree.
(7) If any mining/quarry owner plans to apply for explosive license, he should first obtain Mining Plan, Blast Design and safety guidelines from the office of DGM. Only after obtaining these documents he should apply explosive license from PESO or concerned District Magistrate as per requirement under "The Explosive Act., 1884" or the Rules made there under in "the Explosives Rules, 2008" or "the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012." The concerned Deputy Commissioner while considering application for issue of Explosive Licence should ensure that the applicant is in possession of the aforesaid documents and on issue of Explosive Permit, the concerned Deputy Commissioner should immediately enter the same in the PESO Portal.
(8) Mine/Quarry owner cannot possess or use explosive if their Mining Lease Permit has lapsed.
(9) Royalty should be deposited in Government Account before undertaking any mining/quarrying operation. Royalty and Dead Rent deposited in Government account are non- returnable. Owner of Mining Lease should comply with the lease Deed. Stone/Mineral should not be extracted outside the area of Mining Lease.
(10) For Mine/Quarry owner any statutory clearance required under extant statute should invariably be obtained from the concerned competent authority.
(11) Mine/Quarry owner or Quarry Operator should maintain a register recording details of employees engaged with their detailed particulars, type, number 7 of explosives and accessories procured and used, type and capacity of magazine, security arrangement of magazine, stone/mineral extracted and sold, etc. Exact format for maintenance of record should be prepared by Directorate of Geology & Mining Department. These documents should be kept ready for inspection by DGM or any officer authorised by him on Deputy Commissioner or any officer authorised by him. If the mine/quarry or quarry operator refused to provide these documents for inspection, the defaulter can be jailed for 3 months or made to pay fine Rs. 2,000/- or both.
(12) If the Mine/Quarry owner filed wrong returns or falsified account or refuse to submit road challan (Form-A), a fine of Rs. 3,000/- will be charged and the mining lease/permit will be liable for cancellation as punishment. However, before levying such punishments, adequate opportunity of being heard will be given to the defaulter.
(13) Mine/Quarry owner should maintain a safety buffer zone of at least 3m (l0ñ) with the adjacent land. No extraction is allowed in these zones. If there is dispute between quarry owner and owner of the adjacent land, the buffer zone should be left untouched until the dispute is settled. However, if the adjacent land is also used for quarrying, the owner of the quarry can apply in writing to DGM for common Boundary Working Permission.
(14) In the process of extraction/quarrying of stone, the method of toe cutting/under cutting is to be avoided to prevent accident. Extraction/quarrying should be done in such a way that there are no overhangs (hanging rocks). If such overhangs do exist for whatever reasons, trimming should be carried out immediately to avoid accident.
(15) No haul road shall be of width less than three time plus 5m width of the largest Vehicle playing on road. No road shall have gradient more than 1 in 16.
(16) If the quarry owner planned to use Rock Breaking Powder, he should write to DGM and apply for crackamite usage design and safety guidelines prepared Mining Engineer.
(17) Minors, who are below 18 years, should not be engaged in mines/quarry or their presence allowed within the mine/quarry premises/complex. Only Indian citizen should be engaged and if any foreigner is found to be engaged by mine/quarry owner, he will be penalized (18) In stone quarry, female workers are allowed to work between 6am and 7pm only. However, in underground mines, female workers are not allowed to work in whatever capacity.
8(19) All personnel working in stone quarry should compulsorily use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
-- Safety helmet, mining boot, face mask, ear muffing(for jackhammer drill operator), gloves, vest of bright colour (reflector), etc as preventive measures.
(20) No mining lease/permit should be sold on sub-let to other person without the tacit approval of Director of Geology and Mining Department, Government of Mizoram.
(21) Mine/Quarry owner should pay minimum wages to all the workers as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
(22) Mine/Quarry owner should subscribe to insurance policy for every worker.
3. Proposed DOs & DONTs to be followed while blasting of stone at stone quarries DOs:
(1) Possession of Mining Lease or Short-Term Mining Permit issued by Directorate of Geology & Mining (DGM), Government of Mizoram is mandatory for any person who intends both to extract the stone as well as to blast the stone by using explosives. Also, besides paying Royalty (Non-Tax Revenue) with respect to the quantity of excavated stone/mineral, a Lessee/Permit Holder will be liable to pay Additional Royalty within the entire period of validity of the Lease Permit depending upon the quantity of extraction.
Only those persons possessing valid Mining Lease/Mining Permit are eligible for applying Explosive License (2) Any person intending to blast the stone using Explosive must mandatorily possess Explosive License. Application for Explosive License must be submitted to Petroleum & Safety Organization (PESO) {Formerly Department of Explosive) or to the concerned District Magistrate. Any person intending to apply for Explosive License must first possess Blast Design & Safety Guidelines duly certified and designed by Mining Engineer(s) from DGM, Government of Mizoram.
(3) Accidents (fatality/serious bodily injury/ reportable injury) as a result of blasting in stone quarry must be immediately reported in writing to DGM, Government of Mizoram within 72 hours (3 Days) from the time of occurrence of accident.
(4) To prevent and reduce accidents due to blasting in stone quarry, all District Magistrates within their jurisdiction may insist Blast Design & Safety Guidelines duly certified and designed by Mining Engineer(s) from DGM Government of Mizoram before granting any Explosive License. (Vide General Administration Department (GAD), Government of 9 Mizoram Memo No. A. 60011/8/2018-GAD Dated Aizawl, the 11th August, 2022 in regard to Grant of Explosive License.) (5) Prior to performing blasting, Safety Buffer Zone of 3m (10 ft) from the boundary of the nearest neighbouring land must be reserved. In case of any disputed boundary & until and unless the problem is resolved by concerned authority, Safety Buffer Zone of 3m (10 ft.) will be demarcated in accordance with boundary claimed by the neighbour with dispute but not as per the boundary claimed by the Lease Permit Holder. In case the neighbouring land is being used as stone quarry, Safety Buffer Zone of 3m (10 ft.) might be exempted if the concerned authority (i.e., Director, DGM, Government of Mizoram) granted Common Boundary Working Permission.
(6) All those persons employed in Stone Quarry (especially those performing Blasting) must mandatorily wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) -- Safety Helmet, Mining Boot, Face Mask and for those operating blast hole drilling equipment/machines Ear Muffing, etc. must be worn mandatorily.
(7) It is mandatory that Blaster Shelter with steel frames or RCC be constructed at least within 200 metres from the blasting face. Goat-proof-wire mesh (Kel Pal Dan) of 6 ft. high and 10 ft. long must be firmly erected towards the blasting face so that Blaster Shelter is protected from fly-rock due to blasting.
(8) If Safety Fuse is used as the means of initiating the explosive, at least 1.2m (4 ft) long safety fuse must be used in order to provide the blaster with ample time before reaching safety distance or shelter.
(9) Blasting should be performed only during Daylight. This period must also be in conformity with the time prescribed by the District Magistrate, DGM or Stone Quarry Cluster (Zau) Association.
(10) All those workers engaged with blast hole drilling equipment must be provided by the owner or manager of the stone quarry with adequate face mask so that workers are prevented from an irreversible miner's disease called silicosis.
(11) Magnetic materials must not be used for introducing blasting cap into Explosive/Booster. Instead, bamboo stick, copper or aluminum materials may be used.
(12) After charging the explosives, the charge hole must be densely stemmed with appropriate stemming materials (preferably 70% sand & 30% clay) so that blown-out shot, air-over pressure and fly rock are prevented. The cuttings produced as a result of blast hole drilling can also be reused for the stemming purpose.
10(13) Due to variations in geophysical properties of different rock, fly-rock due to blasting can be prevented by placing wire mesh (50mm X 50mm) overlain by numbers of 50kgs sand- bags above entire area of the charged hole.
(14) If detonating cord (cordtex) is used for connecting between the charged holes, one end of the detonating cord must be joined with safety fuse (at least 4 ft long) which is pre-fitted with blasting cap. The detonating cord must be covered with at least 6 inches thick of mud so that noise and overpressure due to blasting is reduced (15) Before performing blasting, the owner/manager must assign a person holding Red Flag at a distance of 500m Prescribed Danger Zone as per Directorate General of Mines Safety, DGMS) so that the people nearby are warned and kept alerted due to blasting. Horn/Siren must be sounded before blasting as:
(a) Before 5 minutes of blasting: 3 times horn/siren
(b) Before 1 minute of blasting : 2 times horn/siren
(c) Just before Blasting 1 time horn/siren (16) In any accident or destruction due to blasting within danger zone, the Lessee/Mining permit holder/Explosive License holder/blaster will be held responsible for any accident or damage.
The compensation liable to be paid as a result of the accident or damage will be decided by District Magistrate or Director, DGM, Government of Mizoram.
(17) To prevent accident and other calamities, hanging rocks must never be let out. Else, they must be properly trimmed down.
(18) The Explosive License holder or the blaster will be held responsible for any occurrence of accident and fire while charging explosive.
(19) In addition to all the above guidelines, any Circular, Notice, etc. issue and enforced by the DGMS or by the DGM, Government of Mizoram from time to time must be strictly followed.
(20) As per Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 issued by the MOEF & CC, Prior Environmental Clearance shall be obtained for operation of stone quarry irrespective of size from Competent Authority before taking any permission from the State Government.
(21) There should be routine survey by experienced mining/civil/geology/ professional to ensure the stability of the mine benches and safety of the mine personnel's (22) Regular water spray on haul road to suppress the dust particles (23) Proper water drainage arrangement 11 (24) Arrangement for blast induced ground vibration monitoring in regular interval (25) Maintain gap between vehicles while traveling in mines (26) Put proper sign boards at turning, entry point etc. (27) Formation of mine safety committee among miners and officials DON'T's (1). No person with invalid Mining Lease/Mining Permit and invalid Explosive License are allowed to conduct any blasting operation. An Explosive License granted for a particular stone quarry must only be used at the same stone quarry where Explosive License is granted. Usage of Explosive License in places other than the designated stone quarry is against the law.
(2). Explosive cartridges should not be forcibly inserted with pressure into the blast-hole. Else, they must be gently inserted one by one as prescribed.
(3). Toe cutting/under cutting must never be done while blasting (4). Safety fuse and blasting caps must be attached together with a proper Crimper device. The blasting caps must be crimped at about 3.6 mm from the end of the cap hole.
(5). Magnetic materials or any steel or iron must never be used for sealing or piercing the holes of explosives. Else, bamboo sticks or wood-based sticks must be used for sealing or piercing holes into the explosives.
(6). If misfire occurs while using plain detonator (caps) as initiator, at least 30 minutes time must be waited before entering into the blasting face; and if electric detonator is used as initiator at least 5 minutes must be waited before entering into the blasting face. This is for safety as well as to prevent workers from dangerous Nitrous fumes thus produced due to blasting.
(7). Electric circuit and wire connections for initiating detonators and explosives must be thoroughly checked. Lightning, radio- wave and high electric voltage can trigger explosion/initiation of electric detonators. So, electric detonators must be kept away from exposure of such conditions 12 (8). Safety fuse and blasting cap must be properly attached together. Never bite with the teeth in order to attach them together. Instead, proper Crimper Device must be used.
(9). Big Boulders obtained as a result of primary blasting must never be defragmented using rock breaker. In case when requirement of secondary blasting is necessary, the big boulders must be blasted with proper blast design. Secondary blasting needs to be avoided, boulder should be broken by rock breaker (10). Any person below the age of 18 years is neither allowed to be employed in the stone quarry nor enter the premises of the stone quarry. Such persons must never be employed for transporting and blasting explosives in the stone quarry
4. Strengthening of Institutional Mechanism:
The Directorate of Geology and mining was established as a 'Wing' under Department of Industries on 7th April, 1980 and was upgraded to full-fledged Directorate on 1st September, 2010. The Department does not have district officer and all works undertaken from the directorate. The Department has the following sanctioned posts.
Sl. No. Name of post No of sanctioned
post
1 Director 1
2 Joint Director 2
3 Geologist Senior 4
4 Deputy Controller of Mines 1
5 Deputy Director (tech) 1
6 Geologist Junior 5
7 Asst. Controller of Minis 2
8 Asst. Director (Drilling / Lab) 2
9 Office Superintendent 1
10 Finance & Accounts Officer 1
11 Senior Technical Assistant 4
12 Technical Assistant 7
13 Junior Engineer 1
14 Office Assistant 4
15 Upper Division Clerk" 4
16 Lower Division Clerk 3
17 Stenographer-III 2
18 Mechanic-II 2
19 Junior Technical Assistant 13
20 Driver 5
21 Group D/Grade-IV 8
13
TOTAL 73
At present, the department has 10 posts of Geologist, out of which 2 posts of Geologist Jr. are under recruitment by MPSC. There are 2 posts of Mining Engineers and 2 Mining Diploma holders to undertake the work specified in the 4th Schedule: Commerce and Industries Department under the Mizoram (Allocation of Business) Rules, 2019. As mentioned, aforesaid there are 468 valid quarries in 2021 -- 2022 in Mizoram and it is suspected there are equal members of illegal stone quarry operated by small time operator due to deficient enforcement due to dearth of manpower. In the present dispensation, Deputy Controller of Mines and 1 (One) Assistant Controller of Mines is given charge of Aizawl District and Saitual District while the other 9 (Nine) districts are under the charge of Geologist who have no knowledge of Mining Engineering. The Quarry at Hnahthial District including the one at Maudarh where the accident took place is also under the Charge of Geologist, Director Geology and Mining cannot be blamed for this arrangement as additional creation of post of Mining Engineer cannot be done due to financial constraint.
Maudarh incident is the clarion call to strengthen and reconstruct the department of Geology and Mining. To enable the department to effectively and efficiently discharge its mandate, Mizoram may be divided into 4 (four) Divisions.
1. Central Division : Aizawl, Saitual, Serchhip District
2. Eastern Division : Champhai, Hnahthid, Khawzawl District
3. North-Eastern Division : Kolasib and Mamit District
4. Southern Zone : Lunglei, Lawngtlai and Saiha District.
One (1) mining Engineer and one (1) Geologist Junior may be given charge of each Division for supervising mining/quarrying work and also for disaster related work. In the present arrangement all disaster related requisitions made by District Disaster Management Agencies (DDMAs) of the district are catered by the Directorate of Geology and Mining (DGM) which has its office at Aizawl, which is time consuming and prohibitive. If the envisaged Mining Engineer and Geologist Jr. can be attached to the office of the Deputy Commissioner on the analogy of Disaster Management personnel who are already attached, it will not only result in effective supervision of quarrying but also will enhance the Deputy Commissioner capability to dealt with natural disaster such as subsidence, slope stability, landslide, etc. To make such dispensation fruitful, 1 post of Deputy Controller of Mines, 4 (four) posts of Assistant Controller of Mines along with 1 post of Geologist Junior be created to man the proposed 4 (four) Zones. The envisaged manpower will be deployed in the district 14 which has more mining (quarrying to supervise or highly prone to natural disaster such as landslide, earthquake, slope instability, etc.
5. Training Directorate of Geology & Mining should conduct annual training on quarrying method, use of explosive, safety methods, environment preservation, issue of Explosive Licence by Deputy Commissioner, PESO Portal, Mining Legislations, etc. in coordination with PESO, Environment, Forest & Climate Change Department, Deputy Commissioners, etc."
7. PP in its reply has objected to the report. It has taken the plea of 'act of God' on account of accidental landslides. PP has submitted that it took all necessary precautions. It is compliant in all respect. Compliances relied upon are explosive license, mining permit, consent under the Water Act, 1974/Air Act, 1981, permission for drilling and blasting. It is stated that no environmental clearance or mine plan are required. Thus, according to the PP, it has no accountability for the incident and report and recommendations therein and also the stand of the State should be rejected. Learned Counsel for the State has supported the report and State's stand and submitted that the PP be held accountable for the incident and for illegal mining.
8. On due consideration, we find that the PP has conducted its operations in violation of law, particularly requirement of EC. Lack of safety protocols has led to the incident. It is difficult to accept the stand of the PP that it is compliant and the incident is result of landslide for which it has no accountability. The stand of the State and the report of the joint Committee to the effect that the PP has committed violations resulting in the incident appear to us to be well founded. Case is thus made out to fix accountability of the PP for the violations and damage to the environment on polluter pays principle for restoration measures and also to require the PP to take requisite measures for compliance. The statutory regulators and 15 the State Authorities have also to take measures to enforce the law.
Discussion follows.
9. It is undisputed fact that the PP or its Sub-Contractor do not possess requisite EC for mining as per mandate of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 4 SCC 629 and EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006, as amended in the light of the said judgment. Prior thereto EC was required for mining of major minerals in area of more than 5 hectares. Considering the adverse impact of mining of minor minerals on the environment even when mining in smaller area, as discussed in the report of the MoEF&CC of March, 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it mandatory to require EC for mining even of 'minor' minerals and even for area of less than 5 hectares: which areas were not earlier covered by the requirement of EC. Observations therein are quoted below:
"18.......The report was further discussed on 29-1-2010 for its finalisation. The observations/comments made during the meeting were incorporated in the report and it was again circulated to all members for their consideration. The report so circulated was ultimately finalised. The decision taken by MoEF affects generally the mining of minor minerals including the riverbed mining throughout the country.
19. For an easy reference, we may extract the issues and recommendations made by MoEF, which are as follows:
"4.0. Issues and recommendations .....4.5. Requirement of mine plan for minor minerals At present, most of the State Governments have not made it mandatory for preparation of mining plan in respect of minor minerals. In some States like Rajasthan, eco-friendly mining plans are prepared, which are approved by the State Mining Department. The eco-friendly mining plans so prepared, though conceptually welcome, are observed to be deficient and need to be made comprehensive in a manner as is being done for major minerals. Besides, the aspects of reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out areas, progressive mine closure plan, as in vogue for major minerals could be introduced for minor minerals as well.16
It is recommended that provision for preparation and approval of mine plan, as in the case of major minerals may appropriately be provided in the rules governing the mining of minor minerals by the respective State Governments. These should specifically include the provision for reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out area, progressive mine closure plan and post mine land use.
27......We, therefore, direct all the States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry of Mines to give effect to the recommendations made by MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, within a period of six months from today and submit their compliance reports.
28. The Central Government also should take steps to bring into force the Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 2010 at the earliest. The State Governments and UTs also should take immediate steps to frame necessary rules under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 taking into consideration the recommendations of MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India. Communicate the copy of this order to MoEF, Secretary, Ministry of Mines, New Delhi; Ministry of Water Resources, Central Government Water Authority; the Chief Secretaries of the respective States and Union Territories, who would circulate this order to the Departments concerned.
29. We, in the meanwhile, order that leases of minor minerals including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the States/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from MoEF. Ordered accordingly."
10. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118, EC was held to be mandatory. As already mentioned the distinction of major and minor minerals for EC stands done away with after judgment in Deepak Kumar, supra. It was observed:
47. The mining operation is hazardous in nature. It impairs ecology and people's right to natural resources. The entire process of setting up and functioning of mining operation requires utmost good faith and honesty on the part of the intending entrepreneur. For carrying on any mining activity close to township which has tendency to degrade environment and is likely to affect air, water and soil and impair the quality of life of inhabitants of the area, there would be greater responsibility on the part of the entrepreneur. The fullest disclosures including the potential for increased burdens on the environment consequent upon possible 17 increase in the quantum and degree of pollution, has to be made at the outset so that the public and all those concerned including authorities may decide whether the permission can at all be granted for carrying on mining activity. The regulatory authorities have to act with utmost care in ensuring compliance of safeguards, norms and standards to be observed by such entrepreneurs. When questioned, the regulatory authorities have to show that the said authorities acted in the manner enjoined upon them. Where the regulatory authorities, either connive or act negligently by not taking prompt action to prevent, avoid or control the damage to environment, natural resources and people's life, health and property, the principles of accountability for restoration and compensation have to be applied.
52. The grant of permission for mining and approving mining plans and the scheme by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India by itself does not mean that mining operation can commence.
It cannot be accepted that by approving mining plan and scheme by the Ministry of Mines, the Central Government is deemed to have approved mining and it can commence forthwith on such approval. Section 13 of the MMRD Act and the Rules made in exercise of powers under the said section, deal, inter alia, with the aspect of grant of mining of lease and not commencement of mining operations. Rules made under Section 18, however, deal with commencement of mining operations and steps required to be taken for protection of environment by preventing or controlling any pollution which may be caused by mining operation. A mining leaseholder is also required to comply with other statutory provisions such as the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Mere approval of the mining plan by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines would not absolve the leaseholder from complying with the other provisions.
77....No mining operation can commence without obtaining environmental impact assessment in terms of the notification."
11. In Goa Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590, Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that environmental norms apply over and above mining law. It was observed:
74. It will be clear from the aforesaid provisions of Section 33-A of the 1974 Act and Section 31-A of the 1981 Act that the Goa State Pollution Control Board had powers to issue any direction including the power to close, prohibit or regulate mining operations or even to stop or regulate supply of electricity, water or any other service with a view to prevent water pollution or air pollution. Yet, from the report of the 18 Expert Committee as well as the reports of ISM, Dhanbad and NEERI, it is clear that iron ore production in Goa has led to massive negative impacts on all ecosystems leading to enhanced air, water and soil pollution affecting quality of life across Goa. The Goa State Pollution Control Board in its note filed in Writ Petition (C) No. 435 of 2012, however, states:
"Details of monitoring of water quality (with regards to mining leases) from 2007 to 2012 -- The Board conducts inspections during the monsoon and other seasons also to verify the discharge of surface runoff/discharge from the pit outside the mining lease and also collects samples for analysing in the Board Laboratory. Wherever the parameters exceed the prescribed limits necessary directions are issued to the mining units to take remedial measures for controlling the waste water being discharged into the water bodies/fields without treatment. Directions are also issued to provide settling ponds, arrestor walls, filter beds so as to ensure that no untreated waste water is discharged into the water bodies/fields.
Details of monitoring of air quality (with regards to mining leases) from 2007 to 2012 -- The Board is presently carrying out the periodic monitoring of Air Quality in pre-selected areas throughout the State to comply with one of the mandates of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) under National Ambient Monitoring Programme (NAMP) at 16 stations."
75. We do not agree with Mr Arvind Datar, learned Senior Counsel for the Goa State Pollution Control Board, that sincere efforts were made by the Pollution Control Board to monitor the water quality and air quality in the mining areas. Rather, it appears that the Goa State Pollution Control Board, though conferred with immense statutory powers, has failed to discharge its statutory functions and duties. We hope that in future the Goa State Pollution Control Board exercises strict vigil and monitors the water quality and air quality in accordance with the provisions of the two Acts and if necessary, exercises the powers conferred on it to close down mining operation of a lessee, if the lessee does not conform to the air emission and water discharge standards while carrying on mining operations and does not take other preventive measures as directed by the State Pollution Control Board.
76. Regarding the regulation by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, in our order dated 6-1-2014 passed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, we have already directed the Union of India to appoint a Regulator with offices in as many States as possible under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as directed in the order in Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. As and when the Union of India appoints a Regulator under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 with an office for Goa in compliance with the aforesaid direction of this Court, the Regulator so appointed will carry out its functions in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
1977. The regulatory and monitoring measures enforced by the Departments of Mines and Geology, the Goa State Pollution Control Board and the Regulator appointed by the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 cannot, however, restore entirely the environment that is damaged in course of mining operations. The Expert Committee has, therefore, recommended that a permanent fund for intergenerational equity and sustainability of mining for all times to come named as "Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund" be created and an expert group may be constituted by the State for working out the details of this fund. Mr Harish Salve, learned Amicus Curiae, submitted that as the lessees of mining leases earn out of the sale proceeds of the iron ore excavated by them, they should be directed to contribute 10% of the sale proceeds of all iron ore excavated in the State of Goa and sold by them towards the Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund. He cited the judgment of this Court in Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka in which this Court has similarly directed for creation of a Special Purpose Vehicle out of 10% of the sale proceeds of the ore sold by e-auction. There is a lot of force in the aforesaid submission of Mr Salve.
12. The issue of compliance of environmental norms during mining was also gone into in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay, (2014) 9 SCC 772 as follows:
32. The policy and object of the Mines and Minerals Act and Rules have a long history and are the result of an increasing awareness of the compelling need to restore the serious ecological imbalance and to stop the damages being caused to the nature.
The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that adverse and destructive environmental impact of sand mining has been discussed in the UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service Report. As per the contents of the Report, lack of proper scientific methodology for river sand mining has led to indiscriminate sand mining, while weak governance and corruption have led to widespread illegal mining. While referring to the proposition in India, it was stated that sand trading is a lucrative business, and there is evidence of illegal trading such as the case of the influential mafias in our country.
33. The mining of aggregates in rivers has led to severe damage to rivers, including pollution and changes in levels of pH. Removing sediment from rivers causes the river to cut its channel through the bed of the valley floor, or channel incision, both upstream and downstream of the extraction site. This leads to coarsening of bed material and lateral channel instability. It can change the riverbed itself. The removal of more than 12 million tonnes of sand a year from Vembanad Lake catchment in India has led to the lowering of the riverbed by 7 to 15 cm a year. Incision can also cause the alluvial aquifer to drain to a lower level, resulting in a loss of aquifer 20 storage. It can also increase flood frequency and intensity by reducing flood regulation capacity. However, lowering the water table is most threatening to water supply exacerbating drought occurrence and severity as tributaries of major rivers dry up when sand mining reaches certain thresholds. Illegal sand mining also causes erosion. Damming and mining have reduced sediment delivery from rivers to many coastal areas, leading to accelerated beach erosion.
60. There cannot be any two opinions that natural resources are the assets of the nation and its citizens. It is the obligation of all concerned, including the Central and the State Governments, to conserve and not waste such valuable resources. Article 48-A of the Constitution requires that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Similarly, Article 51-A enjoins a duty upon every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for all the living creatures. In view of the constitutional provisions, the doctrine of public trust has become the law of the land. The said doctrine rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, water and forests are of such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be highly unjustifiable to make them a subject of private ownership.
69. Considering the principles of interpretation and the wordings used in Section 22, in our considered opinion, the provision is not a complete and absolute bar for taking action by the police for illegal and dishonestly committing theft of minerals including sand from the riverbed. The Court shall take judicial notice of the fact that over the years rivers in India have been affected by the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining which is damaging the ecosystem of the rivers and safety of bridges. It also weakens riverbeds, fish breeding and destroys the natural habitat of many organisms. If these illegal activities are not stopped by the State and the police authorities of the State, it will cause serious repercussions as mentioned hereinabove. It will not only change the river hydrology but also will deplete the groundwater levels.
13. In Common Cause (2017) 9 SCC 499, it was held that if mining is illegal, the PP has to pay compensation equal to the value of mind mineral.
14. State of Bihar v. Pawan Kumar, (2022) 2 SCC 348, approving the view of the Tribunal in Satendra Pande on the issue of EC requirement, it was observed:
The Tribunal, in Satendra Pandey, has found that the Notification dated 15-1-2016, which provided 21 environmental clearance to be given by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the DEIAA") was not in consonance with the judgment of this Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana. The Tribunal therefore in Satendra Pandey, had directed Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as "MoEF and CC") to take steps to revise the procedure laid down in the Notification dated 15-1-2016. It is to be noted that MoEF and CC, in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal, had issued Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining (hereinafter to referred to as "the 2020 Guidelines") in the month of January 2020."
15. We further note that in pursuance of judgment in Deepak Kumar, Notification dated 14.09.2006 was amended inter alia on 15.01.2016 making EC mandatory for mining of minerals, including minor minerals.
In Southern Bench judgment of this Tribunal dated 30.06.2020 in O.A. No. 136 of 2017 (SZ), Tamil Nadu Small Mine Owners Federation vs. The Secretary, MoEF&CC & Ors., the Tribunal held as under:-
"59. Further, it is clear from the observations made above that even in 2014, when 2006 Notification was amended, the distinction between major and minor minerals was taken away and any mining lease of non coal product, having less than 5 hectares, has been brought under the regime of Environment Clearance. Further, as per 2016 Notification, the time limit for filing application provided for the purpose of renewal, has been taken away perhaps, for the reason that by amending the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ,the period of lease has been extended upto 50 years from 20 years . That may be reason why the MoEF & CC has thought that existing mines also has to obtain Environment Clearance after 15.1.2016 and they need not wait for renewal. Further, the National Green Tribunal in the decision stated supra, has categorically stated that no mining activity should be carried out in India without obtaining Environment Clearance that includes the existing mining leases as well, irrespective of its character viz., minor or major and it is further held that those minors who have not filed application prior to 31.3.2016 were completely debarred from operating mining operations. So under these circumstances, the cut off date for filing the application has to be limited upto 31.3.2016 and those minors who have filed application thereafter, will be treated as violators and their applications will have to be treated as violation applications and disposes of in accordance with law. Further, the notification dated 14.3.2017, providing one time measure for violation cases has been upheld by the Madras High Court also in the decision in PUDUCHERRY ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION case cited supra. Further it was admitted in the application itself that when the cement company wanted some 22 clarification in this regard, MOEFF&CC vide their letter dated 8-1- 2016 informed them to apply for environment clearance without waiting for renewal.
16. In view of above, contention of the PP that no EC is required is without any legal basis. Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court is more than ten years old and is known to all persons in the field. It is difficult to accept that the PP is unaware of law nor such plea of ignorance a legal excuse to avoid accountability for illegality. Further contention that provision for EC is not incorporated in the Mizoram Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2000 is of no consequence in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and statutory Notifications of the MoEF&CC under the EP Act, 1986. Mining Rules do not nullify or control the mandate of the EP Act, 1986. We thus, reject the stand of the PP and uphold the report of the joint Committee that mining without EC is per se illegal.
17. We also find that mining has been done in violation of other norms as found by the Committee. Excavation was performed at the toe of the extraction phase without pre-excavation of overburden, thereby weakening the ultimate foundation. The proper slope angle and adequate benches were not maintained. Blast design was not prepared. Excessive amount of explosive was charged and blasted. There is no mining plan/extraction plan. We thus, accept the report and recommendations therein to be complied by the State Government as well as the PP. Stand of the PP that it is compliant and the incident is act of God cannot be accepted. Violations on the part of the PP stand fully established. We may also refer to the Affidavit of the State which mentions that its Environment Department conducted inspection and recommended following action:-
"
a. Geology & Mineral Resources Department may issue permission for operation of stone quarry only on obtaining prior Environmental Clearance and consent under Air Act, 1981.
23b. Suitable safety operation guidelines may be made available for safety of the workers, general public as well as the environment.
c. All Quarries may be monitored and supervised by the District Administration, State Pollution Control Board, Labor Board/ Department, and Geology & mineral Resources Department.
8.2 Action taken report submitted by Directorate of Geology & Mining:
The Mines Act 1952 with the Metalliferous Regulations 1961, the Explosives Act, 1884 with the Explosives Rules 2008 are relevant laws for examination of this Stone Quarry at Maudarh, Leite located within Hnahthial District, Mizoram Violations and Penalty Provisions:
a. Violation: Reg. 106 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 (MMR 1961) i.e., Non-maintenance of overburden and mineral (stones) benches. Maximum permissible slope angle of face and sides ie. 60o from horizontal was exceeded and maintain high-wall exceeding prescribed limit of 6m.
Penalty: Section 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 ie. Punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- , or with both.
b. Violation: Reg. 34(1) of the MMR 1961 read with Section 17 of the Mines Act, 1952 ie. Non-appointment of qualified Manager at the mine for overall management, control, supervision and direction at the mine.
Penalty: Section 69 of the Mines Act, 1952 ie. Punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 2,500/- , or with both c. Violation: Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Mines Act, 1952 ie. Failure to give notice of any accident occurrence at the mine by the mine owner.
Penalty: Section 70 of the Mines Act, 1952 ie. Punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- , or with both.
d. Violation: Rule 7 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 ie. Possession and use of explosives without holding Explosive Licence.
Penalty: Sub-section (b) of Section 9-B of the Explosives Act, 1884 ie. Punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 3,000/- , or with 24 both. The True Copy of Comments on Incident Report dated 21.12.2022 is annexed herewith and marked as "ANNEXURE-5"
18. The PP has objected to the said stand and submitted that non-
compliances pointed out do not exist as its Contractor has hired a qualified 'shot firer' under Explosive Rules, 2008 to conduct blasting operations at the stone quarry . However, the Certificate annexed shows that the said person was not authorized to conduct blasting operations for mines covered by the Mines Act, 1952. We also notice that blasting permission dated 18.09.2020, Annexure R-7/14 is only for six months from the said date. Thus, on the date of the incident, there was no permission for blasting. Consent to Establish and Operate, Annexures R7/12 and 7/13 are only for operating stone crushers and not for mining. There is no mention of blasting in the said consent. Thus, compliances claimed are not substantiated.
19. We are thus of the view that the mining operations by the PP have been carried out in violation of environmental laws. Apart from compensation to the victims, the PP is liable to pay compensation on polluter pays principle for such serious violations, which have obviously degraded environment. According to media report1, operating Revenue of the PP is over Rs. 700 crores. Following the principles laid down inter alia in MC Mehta, (1987)1 SCC 395, Sterlite (2013) 4 SCC 575, Goel Ganga (2018) 18 SCC 257, MC Mehta (2018) 18 SCC 357 and Common Cause (2017) 9 SCC 499, we determine the liability of the PP at Rs. 70 crores, being 10% of its Revenue. The same be deposited with the Chief Secretary, Mizoram within one month to be utilized for restoration of environment in the State. The Utilization Plan be prepared by the Chief Secretary within one month from the date of deposit in consultation with Regional Office, 1 https://abciinfra.com/abcigroup 25 MoEF&CC and Regional Office, CPCB and executed preferably within six months.
20. We also direct NHAI to take precautions in hiring mining operators (Contractors as well as Sub-Contractors) and ensure that they possess requisite EC and consents, particularly when blasting is involved so that compliance of Environmental Law and safety can be ensured and degradation of environment prevented. If such precautions are not taken, NHAI's vicarious liability may have to be fixed.
21. We also direct that the PP may not be allowed to undertake mining without compliance of deposit and also statutory compliances, mentioned above.
The application is disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to MoEF&CC, CPCB, Chief Secretary, Mizoram, NHAI and District Magistrate, Hnahthial by e-mail for compliance.
[ Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM January 23, 2023 Original Application No. 846/2022 SN 26