National Green Tribunal
News Item Published In Times Now Digital ... vs . Yashyashvi Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.); on 11 June, 2021
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 02 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 59/2021
(with report dated 17.05.2021)
In re: News item published in Times Now News dated 23.02.2021 titled
"Karnataka: Six killed in quarry blast in Hirenagavalli,
Chikkaballapur"
Date of hearing: 11.06.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
Respondent: Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate for CPCB
ORDER
Introduction and procedural history
1. Proceedings have been initiated in the present matter on the basis of the media report dated 23.02.2021 under the heading "Karnataka:
Six killed in quarry blast in Hirenagavalli, Chikkaballapur"1. It is reported that six people were killed in quarry blast in Hirenagavalli, Chikkaballapur on Monday night (22.2.2021). One was injured when the blast took place at the quarry. The incident happened due to large amount of explosives at the site. District In-charge, who visited the spot said that the explosives were illegally held. According to the preliminary information shared by the police, the quarrying work was stopped at the site on February 7 after local residents complained of rampant use of gelatin sticks. The work continued despite the ban, and another raid was conducted by the police, during which the 1 https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/karnataka-5-killed-in-quarry-blast-in-
hirenagavalli-chikkaballapur-pm-modi-expresses-grief/723804 1 contractor was warned not to use gelatin. The explosives went off when the men were trying to dispose them off.
2. The matter was last considered on 25.02.2021 and finding it necessary to ascertain the compliance of safety norms laid down under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 ("the 1989 Rules") and Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules, 1996 (The 1996 Rules), and consequential issue of compensation to the victims and restoration of damage to the environment, the Tribunal constituted a six-member joint committee comprising the CPCB, State PCB, District Magistrate, Chikkaballapur, nominee of Director General, Mines, GoI, Chief Controller of Explosives, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Nagpur, and the Director, Mines, Karnataka to visit the site and ascertain the cause of incident, extent of damage and suggest remedial measures.
3. Notice was directed to be issued to the CPCB, State PCB, the Director, Mines, Karnataka and the District Magistrate, Chikkaballapur and also to the persons reported to be involved in the blasts. Operative part of order dated 25.2.2021 is reproduced below:
"1.....xxx...............................xxx..........................................xxx
2. Above information gives rise to a substantial question of environment relating to compliance of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 ("the 1989 Rules") and Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules, 1996 (The 1996 Rules), which have been framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EP Act), falling in schedule to the NGT Act, 2010. It is necessary to determine the question and if necessary, award relief under Section 15 of the NGT Act to the victims and for restoration of the environment, after determining the liability of the persons engaged in such activity as well as role of the statutory regulators in failing to prevent the same. Further question of preventive measures to avoid recurrence of such incidents in future in such activities also needs to be gone into.2
3. The 1989 Rules require preparation of onsite and offsite plan and conducting of mock drills. As per law laid down in M.C Mehta v. UoI & Ors.2, principle of 'Absolute Liability' is attracted in such cases to compensate the victims of such accidents as well as to compensate the environment. It is necessary to ascertain the cause of the incident, the extent of damage caused, the extent of compensation required to be paid for damage to the environment as well as for loss of lives, causing of injuries and steps required to be taken for preventing any such occurrence in future on the same pattern as the Tribunal has dealt with such accidents in the recent past3.2
(1987) 1 SCC 395 3 i. Order dated 01.06.2020, relating to incident of gas leak dated 07.05.2020 in LG Polymers India Pvt. Limited at Vishakhapatnam, resulting in death of 11 persons and injuries to more than 100, apart from other damage (OA No. 73/2020, In re: Gas Leak at LG Polymers Chemical Plant in RR Venkatapuram Village Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh);
ii. Order dated 03.02.2021, relating to incident dated 03.06.2020 in a chemical factory, Yashyashvi Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. at Dahej, District Bharuch, Gujarat resulting in deaths and injuries and other damage (OA No. 85/2020) (Earlier OA 22/2020) (WZ), Aryavart Foundation through its President vs. Yashyashvi Rasayan Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.); iii. Order dated 06.08.2020, in relation to incident of oil well blow out on 27.05.2020 at Baghjan in the Tinsukia District of Assam resulting in deaths, injuries and damage to the environment (OA No. 43/2020(EZ), Bonani Kakkar vs. Oil India Limited & Ors.). iv. Orders dated 06.07.2020 and 22.12.2020, relating to incident dated 30.06.2020 on account of gas leakage at Sainor Life Sciences factory at Parawada in industrial area on the outskirts of Vishakhapatnam (OA No. 106/2020, News item published in the local daily "Economic Times" dated 30.06.2020 titled "Another Gas Leakage at Vizag Factory kills two, critically injures four..."); v. Orders dated 08.07.2020 and 22.12.2020, dealing with the incident dated 01.07.2020 resulting in death of 6 person and injury to 17 due to blast of boiler in M/s Neyveli Thermal Power Station (NLCIL), Cuddalore (OA No. 108/2020, News item published in the "Indian Express" dated 01.07.2020 titled "Tamil Nadu Neyveli boiler blast: 6 dead, 17 injured") and;
vi. Orders dated 23.07.2020 and 22.12.2020, in relation to incident of fire engulfed the chemical plant of Visakha Solvents Ltd, Vizag on 13.07.2020 at Ramky CETP Solvents building in Pharma City resulting in injuries (OA No. 134/2020, News item published on 13.07.2020 in the local daily named "India Today" titled "Massive fire engulf Vizag chemical plant, explosions heard, injuries reported"). vii. Order dated 18.12.2020, in relation to incident of explosion in a plastic recycling factory at Sujapur in Malda on 1.12.2020 resulting in death of six persons, including two minors and serious injuries to four persons (OA No. 272/2020, News item published in the "Times of India" dated 20.11.2020 entitled "Six killed as blast tears through Malda Plastic recycling factory"). viii. Order dated 18.12.2020, in relation to incident of methane gas leak in a sugar factory called Lokenete Bapurao Patil Agro Industries Ltd. in Mohol Taluka of Solapur District, Maharashtra on 21.11.2020 resulting in deaths and injuries and other damage (OA No. 274/2020, News item published in the "Indian Express" dated 23.11.2020 entitled "Maharashtra: Two Killed, eight injured in methane gas leak in sugar factory"). ix. Order dated 08.01.2021, in relation to Gas Leak in Agro Company (O.A No. 107/2020, In RE: News item published in the local daily "Indian Express Sunday Express" dated 28.06.2020 titled "Gas Leak in Agro Company Claims life of one") x. Order dated 18.01.2021, in relation to News item published in Navbharat Times dated 24.12.2020 titled "Gas leaks in IFFCO Plant, 2 Officers dead" (O.A No. 04/2020, In re :
News item published in Navbharat Times dated 24.12.2020 titled "Gas leaks in IFFCO Plant, 2 Officers dead") xi. Order dated 11.02.2021, in relation to accident of toxic gas leak in Rourkela Steel Plant in Orissa" (O.A. No. 09/2021, In re: News item published in The Indian Express dated 07.01.2021 titled "Four workers dead due to toxic gas leak in Rourkela Steel Plant") 3
4. While directing issuance of notice to the CPCB, State PCB, the Director, Mines, Karnataka and the District Magistrate, Chikkaballapur by e-mail, we constitute a six-
member joint committee comprising the CPCB, State PCB, District Magistrate, Chikkaballapur, nominee of Director General, Mines, GoI, Chief Controller of Explosives, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Nagpur, and the Director, Mines, Karnataka to give a report to this Tribunal. The nodal agency for coordination and compliance will be the CPCB and the State PCB. The committee may visit the site preferably within next one week and give its report about the cause of the incident, the extent of damage caused, the extent of compensation required to be paid for damage to the environment as well as for loss of lives, injuries and steps required to be taken for preventing any such occurrence in future within one month. Except for visit to the site at least once, the Committee will be free to conduct its proceedings online. It will be free to take the assistance from any other expert/organization. The Committee may suitably interact with the stakeholders and, apart from considering the present incident, also consider remedial measures for preventing such incidents in the area or by other establishments even beyond the said area. The Committee may compile information about existence and working of onsite and offsite plans in terms of 1989 Rules and conducting of mock drills and safety SOPs. Since in the recent past, the Tribunal has dealt with similar issues of industrial accidents resulting in deaths and injuries and Expert Committees in some of such accidents have given reports to this Tribunal, such reports may also be taken into account by the Committee to the extent relevant. The reports are available on the website of the CPCB. The report may be filed by email at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. Simultaneously, the report may also be uploaded on the website of the State PCB to enable the concerned stakeholders to access the same and file their response, if any."
The report of the fact-finding Committee
4. In pursuance of above, the joint Committee has given its report dated 17.05.2021 mentioning the steps taken - holding of meetings, visit to the site and conducting of survey and investigation for collecting the relevant information. The Committee has also given its observations, xii. Order dated 16.02.2021, in relation to accident of Virudhunagar firecracker factory blast (O.A. No. 44/2021, In re: News item published in The News Indian Express dated 12.02.2021 titled "At least 19 dead in Virudhunagar firecracker factory blast, more than 30 injured") 4 findings and recommendations for remedial action and for avoiding occurrences in future as follows:-
"5.3 Findings and Observations of the Joint Committee
1. The employees of M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M - Sanders LLP under the instructions of owners of M/s Shridi Sai Aggregates and M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M - Sanders LLP, did the possession, storage, transport and disposal of the explosives in an unauthorized and illegal manner.
2. The owner of the quarry belonging to M/s Sri Shride Sai Aggregates did not submit notice of opening to DGMS as required under the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and relevant regulations framed there under.
Then, the quarry activities were stopped by Department of Mines & Geology and Police by issuing notices for non- compliance.
3. The management of M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates tried to dispose/destroy the explosive illegally possessed and stored illegally in unauthorized place (bushes) near labour shed.
4. The vehicle (bearing no KA-40-A 8789 TATA ACE) (not an explosive van) was used for carrying the explosives and the explosives were improperly disposed off in the open area thus, endangering own safety as well as public safety. The committee has been informed that as per the statement of the vehicle driver (injured), the explosives were disposed off by unauthorized persons at 00:45 AM (midnight).
5. The source, supply and accountability of the explosive from a magazine license holder or otherwise is unknown and is under investigation by Crime Investigation Department, Karnataka.
6. The details of the deceased persons in the blast (exact DOB, Date of joining, work experience, qualification and skill/training in handling explosives) is under investigation by Crime Investigation Department, Karnataka.
The details of the owners/partners and employees (exact DOB, Date of joining/experience, qualification and skill/training in handling explosives) is under investigation by Crime Investigation Department, Karnataka.
7. The only survivor of the accident / blast i.e driver of the vehicle who carried the explosives is under judicial custody.5
8. The type and name of explosives and accessories, being disposed could not be ascertained. However, the sample has been collected by the forensic department, which has been in turn sealed and handed over to Forensic Science Lab, Bengaluru by police department. The result of analysis is awaited for further examination.
9. Non-compliances on the provisions of the Rules and Regulations observed are provided as section 5.3 below.
5.4 Non-compliances of the Rules and Regulations by M/s Shridi Sai Aggregates Contraventions, under the Indian Explosive Act, 1984 and rules framed thereunder, done by management of the quarry belonging to M/s Sri Shride Sai Aggregates in operation of the mine is as under:
i. As per subrule 5 of Rule 10 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, restriction on handling explosives stipulates that no person shall handle or cause to be handled any explosive between the hour of sunset and sunrise unless otherwise specifically permitted by the licensing authority, provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to handling of explosives during dark hours if proper illumination is provided in the area and the place is guarded.
ii. As per subrule 3 of Rule 10 Restriction on transport -- (a) Any explosive of Class 5 (Fulminate) or detonator or any other explosive of Class 6 (Ammunition) containing its own means of ignition or initiation, or an explosive of Class 7 (Fireworks) shall not be transported in the same carriage, or save as provided in Part 3 of Schedule VI in the same vessel and shall not be conveyed or handled with any explosives not of the class and division to which it belongs.
(a) No person shall transport any explosive with explosives belonging to Compatibility Group K referred to against serial number 10 in Table 1 under Part 3 of Schedule I, in a vehicle.
(b) No person shall transport explosives of Class3 or Class 2(high explosives) along with detonators.
(c) Nothing in clauses (a) and (b) shall apply to the transport of explosives of Class 2 and/or Class 3, safety fuse, detonating fuse and detonators in a compressor mounted motor truck or tractor covered under a licence as per these rules.
ii. Rule 63 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, stipulate restriction on transport of explosives except fireworks and safety fuse by vehicles other than Road vans or compressor mounted motor 6 truck or tractor that, no explosive other than Fireworks or safety fuse shall be transported by any carriage which is not, a road van or compressor mounted motor truck or tractor:
provided that any carriage, which is not a road van or compressor mounted motor truck or tractor, may transport any explosive if the distance from the place of loading to the place of destination does not exceed 10 kilometres and the following conditions are complied with- (a) the transport of explosives is restricted to the period between sunrise and sunset; (b) the explosives are accompanied by at least two able-bodied Guards; (c) a Red flag is displayed on each card; the packages containing explosives are suitably covered by tarpaulin, and secured.
iii. As per Sub Rule 1 of Rule 71 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, under Chapter VII regarding possession in licensed premises-A person holding licence for possession of explosives granted under these rules shall store the explosives only in premises specified in licence.
iv. As per Sub Rule 4 of Rule 90 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, regarding Restriction on conveyance of explosives to or at the blasting site - Explosives left over after the day's work shall be returned to the licenced premises from which the same was taken.
v. As per Rule 96 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, regarding Person in charge to be responsible -- The licensee or a shot firer employed by him to be in-charge of blasting operations shall take all precautions against fire, accident, loss, pilferage etc., of explosives and will be personally held responsible for any contravention of the relevant provisions of the Act or Rules thereof.
vi. As per Rule 97 of the Explosive Rules, 2008, regarding Blasting operations in mines.--Blasting operations in mines shall be carried out as per the Mines Act, 1952(35 of 1952) and such operations shall be carried out according to regulations framed under that Act. The shot firer employed for blasting operations shall take all precautions against fire, accident, loss, pilferage etc., of the explosives and personally be held responsible for any contravention of the provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the rules thereof.
Subsequently, it was also found contraventions, under the Mines Act, 1952 and regulations framed there under, done by management of the quarry belonging to M/s Sri Shride Sai Aggregates while operation of the mine/Quarry:
vii. As required under the section 16 of the Mines Act, 1952 read with Regulation 3 of the MMR, 1961 - Notice of opening: The owner, agent or manager of a mine shall, at least one month before the commencement of any mining operation, give to the Chief Inspector, the Controller, Indian Bureau of Mines and the District Magistrate of the district in 7 which the mine is situated, notice in writing in such form and containing such particulars relating to the mine, as may be prescribed (enumerated in Regulation 3 of the MMR, 1961).
viii. As required under Section 17 of the Mines Act, 1952 read with Regulation 34 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, no mine shall be opened, worked or re-opened unless there is a manager of the mine, being a person duly appointed and having such qualification as are required under the said regulation for the overall management, control, supervision and direction of the mining operations.
ix. As required under Section 18 of the Mines Act, 1952- Duties and responsibilities of owners, agents and managers: - (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.
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 thereunder.
x. Regulation 160 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, Blaster: (1) The preparation of charges, the charging and stemming of holes shall be carried out by or under the personal supervision of a competent person, in these regulations referred to as a 'blaster'. The blaster shall fire the shots himself. No person shall be appointed to be a blaster unless he is the holder of Manager's, Foreman's Mate's or Blaster's certificate.
No person whose wages depend on the amount of mineral, rock or debris obtained by firing shots, shall be appointed to perform the duties of a blaster.
Note: The shot firer certificate holder (issued by PESO) or Magazine license holder is not authorised to conduct blasting in the mines] The blaster shall be appointed by the owner of the quarry lease.
CHAPTER 6 IMPACT DUE TO THE BLAST OF EXPLOSIVES 6.1 Impact on Human life As per the information furnished by the driver involved in the incident to the police department, about 10-12 kg of explosives blasted at the site for less than a minute with a huge noise. Among seven persons involved in the unauthorized disposal, six persons died on the spot and one person suffered minor 8 injuries. The person (driver) who suffered minor injuries was waiting in the vehicle that was parked at a distance of about 30 metres. The joint committee, therefore, assessed that the blast might have occurred due to either of the following:
confinement of the explosives or presence of detonators or use of fire or disposal of entire lot of explosives at a time or unscientific mode of disposal. The impact (viz., air pressure, noise, vibration, dust, particles etc.) might have occurred within the radius of 30 metres causing death of persons (06) who were in immediate vicinity.
6.2 Impact on Environment It was observed that there were no residential colonies, government buildings/public structures, water bodies or vegetation in and around the blast site except small bushes within 200 metres.
Therefore, no visible impact on the environment found. Photographs of the accident spot and the nearby areas before and after the blast incident are given below at Figure 6.
No damage has been caused either to any water bodies, public structures or government buildings as observed in and around the surrounding area due to the incident. No loss of livestock and no impact on the flora and fauna around the site was observed as the site is a barren land. The same was confirmed with the officials who visited immediately after the incident, which comprised of district administration, Superintendent of Police, District Health Officer, Department of Mines and Geology etc. The explosives blast might have caused vibration, air overpressure, dust particles, noise and gases etc. Blasting in controlled conditions and planned technique generally, causes loud noise called air blast or air overpressure. Air overpressure, however, is not simply the sound that is heard, it is an atmospheric pressure wave consisting of high frequency sound that is audible (20-20000Hz) and low frequency sound or concussion that is sub audible (<20 Hz) and cannot be heard. Either or both of the sound waves can cause damage if the sound pressure is high enough and intolerable. The joint committee was informed that the blasting did not last for more than ONE minute and the intensity of impact on environment (except huge noise and loss of lives) as above may be negligible.
The joint committee also observed that there was no fire incident subsequent to the blast incident, as there were no inflammable substances present in and around the blast site (eg. Trees, dry vegetation etc.).
Further, in case the explosives (about 10-12 Kg) is of Ammonium nitrate, or AN (NH4NO3) based compound, as reported in various studies that the basis of most explosives used in the mining industry. Its detonation usually needs to be deliberately initiated, but there have been a number of instances when it has spontaneously exploded, at great risk to life and property. In this blast case also the joint committee awaits the detailed sample report of the Forensic and Central Investigation Department, Government of Karnataka for the information on the type and category of explosive 9 material that caused the explosion. Upon receipt of complete information, a technical team of officials involving Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation to examine the matter and assess the possible impact on the environment (for example, decomposition of chemical compounds in explosives into gases etc.) that might have been caused due to the explosion.
CHAPTER 7 ACTION TAKEN REPORT AND MEASURES TO AVOID SUCH INCIDENTS 7.1 Action Taken Report on Defaulters A. Action taken by District Collectorate and Police Department As a consequence of the unforeseen blast incident, functioning of all the quarries, crushers along with transportation of all explosive substances have been completely stopped. Later, permission was given for 05 quarries where all the relevant documents were available. About 08 cases were registered as a result of raids and investigation in some quarries for information about illegal storage and usage. Further, strict measures were taken to ensure compliance of all rules, possession of all necessary documents and to conduct/operate crushers/quarries only after obtaining legal permission.
The Explosive Audit Committee comprising of Police Department and Department of Mines & Geology has been formed for inspection, monitoring and auditing of all magazines and quarry located in the district.
A committee comprising of officer of Revenue Department, Police Department, Forest Department, Department of Mines & Geology and KSPCB has been formed for inspection of stone crusher and quarry and for verification of legalized mandatory documents.
The explosive audit committee by Department of Police has formed for inspection and monitoring of all quarries and magazines located in the district. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) was prepared and circulated to all quarry and magazine owners regarding the detailed procedures to be followed for strict compliance while usage, storage and transportation of explosives.
B. Action Taken by Department of Mines and Geology From 01.02.2021 to 02.03.2021, one month programme was conducted by Mines and Geology Department, Chikkaballapura District to create awareness regarding Mining safety among the Lease holders and Public.
The report submitted by Department of Mines and Geology, Chikkaballapura District to Director, Mines and Geology, Bangalore and District Commissioner, Chikkaballapura regarding the blast incident is appended as Annexure III.
10On 25.02.2021, a district task force (Mines) meeting was held under the chairmanship of District Commissioner wherein, decision was taken regarding formation of officers team including Police Department, Department of Forest, Revenue, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Department of Mines & Geology to inspect the quarries and crushers for document verification along with use of explosives audit.
On 05.03.2021, a district task force (Mines) meeting was held under the chairmanship of District Commissioner. Task force officers team inspected 05 quarries and 06 crushers and the report was placed before the District Task Force Committee for review and as per the decision of the committee, out of 71 active quarries and 54 crushers, 05 quarries and 06 crushers were allowed to operate as per the legal provisions.
On 07.04.2021, a district task force (Mines) meeting was held under the chairmanship of District Commissioner. Task force officers team inspected remaining 66 quarries and 48 crushers and the report was placed before the District Task Force Committee for review. As per the decision of the committee, out of 71 active quarries and 54 crushers, additionally 12 quarries and 38 crushers were allowed to operate as per the legal provisions.
C. Action Taken by Directorate General of Mines and Safety The two blasts one at Shivamoga and the other at Chikkaballapur, occurred well outside the leasehold area, allotted for mining operations, and therefore do not come under the purview of The Mines Act, 1952 (administered by DGMS). However, some safety promotional initiatives were taken up such as;
(i) On 09.02.2021, a meeting held with DC, Shivamoga, Senior Geologist, DMG and quarry owners on mines safety,
(ii) On 23.02.2021, a meeting on mines safety held with quarry owners of Shivamoga district at DGMS, SZ, Bengaluru,
(iii) On 01.03.2021, a meeting on mines safety held with quarry owners of Shivamoga district at DGMS, SZ, Bengaluru,
(iv) On 05.03.2021, a meeting with mine owners of Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District.
(v) On 24.02.2021, a meeting on mines safety held with MP, Shivamoga, Director, DMG, Karnataka and DC, Shivamoga at CM, Camp office, Bengaluru.
(vi) On 10.03.2021 an orientation program on the Mines Act, 1952 to the Director and officers of Department of Mines and Geology, Karnataka at Kanija Bhawan, Bengaluru.
(vii) On 17.03.2021, a workshop cum awareness program on mines safety by officials of DGMS to owners, managers and 11 other stakeholders organised by Quarry Owners' Federation, Karnataka at Palace Grounds, Bengaluru.
(viii) On 26.03.2021, a meeting with Minister of Mines, Karnataka and their officials, Director (DMG) at Vikash Shoudha, Bengaluru regarding the latest developments in the operation of the mines and the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952.
(ix) On 28.02.2021, a meeting with police, SP Tavarekere, quarry owners and officials from Revenue Department, DMG, Transport Department.
To ensure safety of persons employed in the mine statutory persons are required to be appointed in the mine. To provide statutory persons to the mining industry, statutory examinations like mining mate, blaster (Junior Mining Examination) were conducted on 23rd, 24th and 25th of January, 2021. Senior mining examinations like First Class Manager's Certificate of Competency and Second Class Manager's Certificate of Competency were conducted from 18th to 23rd of February, 2021.
In addition, on 29th, 30th and 31st of March, 2021, a medical board was conducted for revalidation of the statutory certificates held under the Mines Act, 1952.
D. Action taken by Chief Controller of Explosives It was reported in Times Now News dated 23/02/2021 that six killed in quarry blast in Hirenagavalli, Chikkaballapur. Honourable National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the matter of O.A. No. 59 of 2021 suo moto passed orders dated 25/02/2021 and appointed a six member Joint Committee comprising the CPCB, State PCB, Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur, District Magistrate, Chikkaballapur, nominee of Director General, Mines and the Director of Mines, Karnataka to give report to the Tribunal within one month i.e. on or before 30/04/2021.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police & Investigating Officer, Special Enquiry Division, CID, Bengaluru, vide his letter No. SED/Guidebande PS/2020 - 2021 dated 24/03/2021 informed the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Mangalore that CID is conducting investigation in Crime No. 34/2021 u/s 286, 304 IPC r/w 356 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 of Gudibande Police Station. He informed that lot of quarries are being operated without any licence and purchasing explosives also illegally and requested to furnish the role of PESO under Explosives Substances Act, 1908, Explosives Act, 1884 and Explosives Rules, 2008 to assist in the investigation.
The Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, vide his letter No. E.2(5) Chikkaballapur dated 26/03/2021 furnished the following details:
1. Illegal manufacture, transport, storage, sale or use of Explosives in quarry/mines does not come under the purview of PESO as opined by the Chief Controller of Explosives, 12 Nagpur, the final statutory authority for civil explosives (Commercial Explosives) in India.
2. PESO is not the competent authority to issue Quarry/Mines permit and no licence has been issued in the name of Sri Sai Aggregates, Gundibande Taluk, Chikkaballapur District for possession for use/sale of explosives.
3. All the District Magistrates/Superintendent of Police have been provided with user ID and password by the Chief Controller of Explosives, Nagpur to monitor online the sale, use and transport of explosives in their jurisdiction.
4. PESO is issuing licence for legal possession of authorised explosives for sale/use after obtaining No Objection Certificate from the District Authority concerned as per Rule 102 of Explosives Rules, 2008 and transport of explosives by an explosives road van. At the time of issue of licence, a copy of the same is invariably forwarded to the concerned District Authority and Superintendent of Police as per Rule 107(2) and 137 of explosives Rules, 2008.
5. There is a laid down Rule 128 (1) to (4) of Explosives Rules, 2008 for inspection of legal/authorised explosives. As per Rule 128 (4) of Explosives Rules, 2008, the Executive Magistrate or Police Officers authorised to carryout inspection of the magazines located within their jurisdiction once in six months to ascertain any violation of Acts and Rules.
6. Safety aspects regarding labours in legal mines do not fall under the purview of PESO. Mines falls under the purview of DGMS and legal quarries falls under the purview of Directors of Industrial Safety & Health, Mines and Geology Department.
7. PESO issues Shot Firer Permit as per Rule 107 of Explosives Rules, 2008 to undertake blasting in authorised quarries as per Rule 96 of Explosives Rules, 2008 and blasting in approved mines may be carried out by the Permit Holders issued by the DGMS.
As per Rule 96 of Explosives Rules 2008 - The licensee or a short fire employed by him to be in charge of legal blasting operations shall take all precautions against fire, accidents loss, pilferage etc of Explosives and will be personally held responsible for any contravention of the relevant provisions of Act & Rule thereof.
8. Only the licenses issued by PESO for Manufacture, Transport, Storage & Sale, Use of authorized explosives falls under the purview of PESO for inspection.
Illegal manufacture, transport, storage, sale or use of Explosives in quarry/mines does not come under the purview of PESO. The explosion occurred when the men were trying to dispose the explosives at a place which is not covered under any licence issued under the Explosives Rules, 2008. Neither information regarding 13 the licence holder nor copy of FIR filed in Crime No. 34/2021 u/s 286, 304 IPC r/w 356 of Explosives Substances Act, 1908 and Section 9(b) of Explosives Act, 1884 of Gudibande Police Station has been received by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Mangalore. Moreover, the Honourable National Green Tribunal appointed six member committee to investigate in to the accident and ordered to file a report on or before 30/04/2021. Therefore no action has been initiated under the Explosives Rules, 2008 so far.
On receipt of the FIR against any person possessing licence under Explosives Rules, 2008, further necessary action under Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 2008 will be initiated.
CHAPTER 8 COMPENSATION 8.1 EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION Six persons namely, Sh Uma Mahesh (Manager), Sh Ramu (Supervisor), Sh Abhi Nayak (accountant), Sh Nepali Mahesh Sing Bore (security guard), Sh Gangadara (system operator), Sh Muralikrishna (computer operator) who were working in the stone crusher i.e. M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP, Hirenagavalli Village, Chikkaballapur died on the spot. One person named Sh Mohammed Riyaz Ansari, driver of M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP who drove the vehicle i.e. TATA ACE (bearing vehicle no. KA-40-A-8789), suffered minor injuries.
As informed by the police department, the post mortem reports of the deceased persons are available with the Central Investigation Department, Karnataka for detailed investigation of the cause of the incident. The cause of death has been recorded by police department as death on the spot due to huge explosion of explosives.
As per the reports of the District Health & Family Welfare Office, Chikkaballapur, Karnataka (No. DHO/CBP/P.S/J. Committee/01/2020-21 dated 30.03.2021) the person (driver) injured due to blasting of explosives was shifted from the blast site to District hospital through Ambulance (108) on 23.02.2021 at 03.24 am. Preliminary medical checkup was conducted and it was found that the patient was in conscious state, vitals were stable. Whereas, he was suffering from hearing loss in the right ear with multiple abrasions on the face, hand and leg. Then, he was referred to ENT department of Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. Now, after the medical check-up and treatment, the health status of Sh Riyaz, aged, 35 years was given as stable and is in police custody.
Also, as per the records of the police department the following persons were found as accused for the blast and cases were registered against them;
I. Sh Nagaraj, Owner, M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates (co-owner of M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP) 14 II. Sh Ragavendhra Reddy, Owner, M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP ((co-owner of M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates);
III. Other workers/partners of M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates & M/s Bhramaravasini M-Sander LLP are as below;
1. Sh Lakshmipathi Reddy, M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP
2. Sh Venkata Shiva Reddy, partner, M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP
3. Sh D V Ravindra, partner, M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates
4. Sh H S Madhusudhan Reddy, partner, M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates
5. Sh Manjunatha Reddy, partner, M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates
6. Sh Praveena
7. Sh Ananda
8. Sh Ganesha
9. Sh M Murthy
10.Sh M Sambashiva Reddy IV. The following are the deceased persons and one injured person, recorded as accused by the police department;
1. Sh Uma Mahesh, Manager, M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP
2. Sh Ramu, Supervisor, M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M- sanders LLP
3. Sh Abhilash, Accountant, M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M- sanders LLP
4. Sh Mahesh Singh Bora, Security Guard, M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP
5. Sh Gangadhar Babu, System Operator, M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP
6. Sh Chikkodu Murali @ Muralikrishna, Computer Operator M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP The details of the six deceased persons and one injured person are provided in Table 3 below;
Table 3. Details of the persons who deceased and injured in the blast S. Name Living DO B Age/Sex Qualifica Date of Experience Employee No status tion joining in No of Status and the unit Yrs. registration details 1 Sh Uma Deceased - 34 - - - Manager, Mahesh Yrs/M M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP 2 Sh Ramu Deceased - 27 - - - Supervisor, Yrs/M Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP 3 Sh Mahesh Deceased - 31 - - - Security 15 Singh Bora Yrs/M Guard, Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP 4 Sh Gangadhar Deceased - 36 - - - System Operator, Babu Yrs/M Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP 5 Sh Abhilash Deceased - 25 - - - Accountant, @ Abhinayak Yrs/M Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP 6 Sh Chikkodi Deceased - 24 - - - Computer Operator Murali Yrs/M (Weighing), @ Shree Muralikrishna Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP 7 Sh Muhammed Alive - 35 - - - Driver;
Riyaz Yrs/M Shree
Bhramaravasini
M-sanders LLP
To assess the compensation for the staff/workers who were deceased during the blast, the joint committee has adopted two methods referring to; (i) The Judgement dated 16th August 2019 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civil appeal No. 6339 of 2019 in the matter of Sunita Tokas vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd.; (ii) The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923.
The joint committee has considered the lowest among two methods to determine the compensation for Sh Uma Mahesh, Manager as he is also equally responsible for the accident. Whereas, for the other persons, maximum of two methods is considered for determining the compensation.
As per the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the amount of compensation shall be an amount equal to fifty percent of the monthly wages of the deceased multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of one lakh and twenty thousand rupees whichever is more, where death results from the injury.
The joint committee has noted that the employees were liable to draw monthly wages from M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP as they were holding an assigned designation in that stone crusher. However, the employees were asked to dispose off the illegally possessed explosives which were belonging to M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates, quarry. In this regard, it is observed that both the above owners of M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates, quarry and M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP who are partners are equally responsible for the blast and liable to pay the compensation to the deceased persons.
The details of exact date of birth, date of joining, qualification and work experience of the employees are not available with the police department or District Administration.
In order to assess the compensation as per the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the joint committee has referred to the notification of Ministry of Labour and Employment vide S.O. 71(E) dated 03.01.2020 in the exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1B) of section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, wherein the Central Government specified fifteen thousand rupees as the monthly wages.
16Therefore, the joint committee has considered INR 15000 as monthly wages for all the deceased persons. The detailed calculation for estimating the compensation in the above cases are given at Table 4 below;
Table 4. Calculation of Compensation as per the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 S. Name of the A* OR B No Person Amount of Whichever is Amount of Compensation in INR more/less as Compensation in INR as per Hon'ble considered by the as per Employee's Supreme Court Committee to assess Compensation's Act, judgement in Civil compensation 1923 Appeal No. 6339 of depending on the 2019 and Civil extent of offense has Appeal No. 3483 of been committed by 2008 the persons also by illegally handling the explosives under the instructions of the owners.
1 Sh Uma Mahesh 6315000/- OR Compensation = (34) Whichever is lesser fifty percent of the monthly wages of the deceased x relevant factor = Rs. 7500 x 201.66 = 15,12,450 2 Sh Ramu 1347960/- OR Compensation = (27) Whichever is higher fifty percent of the monthly wages of the deceased x relevant factor = Rs. 7500 x 215.28 = 16,14,600 3 Sh Mahesh Singh 1372920/- OR Compensation = Bora Whichever is higher fifty percent of the (31) monthly wages of the deceased x relevant factor = Rs. 7500 x 207.98 = 15,59,850 4 Sh Gangadhar Compensation = Babu fifty percent of the (36) monthly wages of the deceased x relevant factor = Rs. 7500 x 197.06 = 14,77,950 5 Sh Abhilash Compensation = @ Abhinayak fifty percent of the (25) monthly wages of the deceased x relevant factor = Rs. 7500 x 218.47 = 16,38,525 6 Sh Chikkodi Compensation = Murali @ fifty percent of the Muralikrishna monthly wages of the (24) deceased x relevant factor = Rs. 7500 x 219.95 = 16,49,625 Total Compensation to be paid as per Employees Compensation Act, Rs. 94,53,000/-
1923 (to be shared proportionately by the owners and partners of M/s (Rupees Ninety Four Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP and M/s Shridi Sai Aggregates Lakhs Fifty Three Quarry) Thousand Only)
A*-The detailed calculation of the Compensation as per the Supreme Court Orders in civil appeal No. 6339 of 2019 and civil appeal no. 3483 of 2008 is given as Table 5.
**Relevant factor under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - in relation to an employee means the factor specified in the second 17 column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the employee on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due.
Table 5. Calculation of Compensation as per the Supreme Court Orders in Civil Appeal No. 6339 of 2019 and Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008 Name DO Qualific Salary Futur Le Salary Deduc Loss of An nu Loss of Expen Los s Compens B/ ation & per e ss after tion monthl al future se for of ation Age Designat mont Prosp tax deduct toward y incom re- shiftin Love at ion h for ect s ing tax s income e incom g the and the the (40 person to the e morta affect time emplo % of al depend l ion of yee the expens ants remai de inco es ns at h me) and loss of estate and funer al expen ses (app .
Cost
)
- - - A* B C D ET = F = G= H#= I$ J& L=
50 % D-E F*1 G*M (F*G*H)+I
of D 2 +J
Sh. 34 Manager 500 200 50 65000 3250 0 32500 390 624 500 250 6315000
Uma 00 00 00 000 000 00 00
Mahes 0
h (34)
Sh 27 Super 120 480 0 12480 6240 6240 748 127 500 250 1347960
Ramu visor 00 80 296 00 00
(27) 0
Sh 31 Security 1300 5200 0 13520 6760 6760 8112 12979 5000 2500 1372920
Mahes Guard 0 0 2 0 0
h 0
Singh
Bora
(31)
Sh 36 System 260 104 0 3640 1820 18200 218 3494 500 250 3569400
Gangadh Operato 00 00 0 0 400 400 00 00
ar Babu r
(36)
Sh 25 Account 140 560 0 1960 9800 9800 117 1999 500 250 2074200
Abhilash ant 00 0 0 600 20 00 00
@
Abhinaya
k
(25)
Sh 24 Comput 150 600 0 2100 1050 10500 126 2142 500 250 2217000
Chikkodi er 00 0 0 0 000 000 00 00
Murali @ Operato
Muralikris
r
hna
(24) (Weighin
g)
II. Total Compensation to be paid as per Orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal
No. 6339 of 2019 and civil appeal no. 3483 of 2008 = Rs. 16896480/- (One Crore Sixty Eight Lakh Ninty Six Thousand Four Hundred Eighty) (to be shared proportionately by the owners and partners of M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP and M/s Shridi Sai Aggregates Quarry) *Salary per month for the staff and workers of M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP has been furnished by the Police Department.
18T Deduction towards personal expenses varies @ 50% for age of the deceased 20yrs to 50yrs # Depending on the age, the factor is fixed. 16 for age group 31-35 years and 17 for age group 26 to 30 years.
& The committee fixed the amount as Rs.50,000/- for loss of love and affection @ The committee fixed the amount as Rs.25,000/- for loss of estate, funeral expenses and for shifting mortal remains The amount of compensation may be paid as whichever is higher of the above two calculated methods to only 05 deceased persons except Sh Uma Mahesh (Manager), as he being at the level of decision making could have prevented the blast.
The joint committee has assessed that the following compensation be paid among the two methods calculated;
1. Sh Uma Mahesh - Rs. 15,12,450/-
2. Sh Ramu - Rs. 16,14,600/-
3. Sh Mahesh Singh Bora - Rs. 15,59,850/-
4. Sh Gangadhar Babu - Rs. 3569400/-
5. Sh Abhilash @ Abhinayak - Rs. 2074200/-
6. Sh Chikkodi Murali @ Muralikrishna - Rs. 2217000/-
Therefore, the committee recommends that the compensation calculated using the above two methods i.e as per the Supreme Court Orders in civil appeal No. 6339 of 2019 and civil appeal no. 3483 of 2008 and Employees Compensation Act, 1923 may be considered and the amount may be levied proportionately from both the units (M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP and M/s Shridi Sai Aggregates Quarry). The collected amount may be disbursed to the dependants of the deceased family through concerned Legal Authority, Government of Karnataka.
CHAPTER 9 MEASURES TO AVOID THE OCCURENCES Provisions have been made in the Explosive Rules, 2008 wherein Rule 128 stipulates the powers of search and seizure --
1) Any authority specified in column (1) of the Table below may within the jurisdiction specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of that Table--
(a) enter, inspect and examine any place, aircraft, train, carriage, vessel or any mode of transport in which an explosive is being manufactured, possessed, used, sold, transported, exported or imported under a licence granted under these rules, or in which he has reason to believe that an explosive has been or is being manufactured, possessed, used, sold, transported, exported or imported in contravention of the Act or these rules;
(b) search for explosives or ingredients thereof;
19 Authority Jurisdiction
The Chief Controller or All parts of India
Controller
All District Magistrates Their respective jurisdiction
All Executive Magistrates Their respective jurisdiction
subordinate to the District
Magistrate
All Commissioners of Police Their respective jurisdiction
or Police Officers of rank
not below that of a
Sub-Inspector of Police
The Director General of Their respective jurisdiction
Mines or officers
subordinate to him
(c) take samples of any explosive or ingredients found therein on payment of the value thereof, if such payment is demanded at the time of the sample are taken;
(d) seize, detain and remove any explosive or ingredients thereof found therein together with connected documents thereof in respect of which he has reason to believe that any of the provisions of the Act or these rules have been contravened.
2) Whenever any officer other than the Chief Controller seizes, detains or removes any explosive or ingredients thereof or any connected documents thereof under this rule, he shall forth with report the fact by telegram to the Chief Controller and the Controller under whose jurisdiction the place where the explosives were seized falls and whenever any officer not being the District Magistrate seizes, detains or removes any explosives or ingredients thereof or any connected documents thereof under this rule, he shall forthwith report the fact by telegram to the district authority concerned.
3) Whenever any explosives are seized they shall be stored up in an isolated place under adequate guard until examination by the Chief Controller or Controller and receipt of instructions from him as to their disposal.
4) Notwithstanding the above, the Executive Magistrates or Police Officers authorized in the table shall carry out inspection of the magazines located within their jurisdiction once in six months in order to ascertain if there has been any violation of the Act or the rules thereof. An assessment regarding adequacy of security guards provided by the licensee at the magazines as per Rule 21(2) should also be made during such inspection. A report of such inspection should be submitted to the concerned District Magistrate or Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police with a copy to the licensing authority.
Also, Rule 129 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 says power to destroy explosives and ingredients there of 20 (1) the chief controller or a controller -
(a) shall destroy any explosive other than military ammunition of Indian or foreign origin wherever found - (i) the manufacture possession or import of which has been prohibited absolutely under section 6 of the act; or (ii) if the explosive belongs to the class five (fulminate) and is being manufactured, processed, used, sold, transported, exported or imported illegally without a licence under these rules;
(b) may destroy or render harmless any other explosives coming within the purview of these rules, or ingredient thereof in respect of which the chief controller or controller has reasons to believe that any of the provisions of the Act or these rules have been contravened or which in his opinion are no longer fit for storage, transport or use and the matter appears to be urgent to such controller and fraught with serious danger to public.
9.1 Measures to be taken to avoid such occurrences
(i) Necessary guidelines and SOPs regarding proper handling of explosives under provisions of the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosive Rules, 2008 may be issued to the magazine holders and stakeholders by Chief Controller of Explosives from Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO).
In addition, the conditions stipulated in the licenses issued to the magazine owners and other stakeholders for safe handling of explosives, by PESO may be verified for compliance by the local authorities like Police Department.
(ii) Whenever explosive materials are impounded by police and revenue departments, the Chief Controller of Explosives may extend technical guidance by deploying qualified person(s) for safe disposal of explosives in the designated place. In case of non- availability of such persons, CCE may authorize competent authority for disposal of the same in a time bound manner. Police department may also extend necessary cooperation with PESO for necessary procedures.
In this regard, Power to destroy explosives and ingredients, thereof, lies with the Chief Controller or a Controller other than military ammunition of Indian or foreign origin; Officers of organization carry out destruction of seized of explosives after Hon'ble Court permissions obtained by the police authority or any unserviceable explosives from time to time as stipulated under Rule 129 of the Explosives Act, 1884.
(iii) There is need for strengthening of PESO for carrying the duties and responsibilities stipulated under the 21 Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosive Rules, 2008. At present, the Organisation is currently functioning with 137 officer posted in 26 offices in the country and the Department Testing Station needs to be strengthened, as it is only technically competent authority for Commercial Explosives.
(iv) In the light of provisions, related to punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property and punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances under The Explosives Substances Act, 1908, the joint committee recommends that implementation of the aforesaid provisions need to be strengthened to avoid illegal possession and handling of explosive materials by the authorities designated under the Act including District Administration and local police department.
In addition, suggestions for amendment of the Rules and Regulations, if any, may be recommended by Chief Controller of Explosives, PESO after thorough examination.
(v) With specific reference to the incident, the joint committee recommends that Online Real time monitoring system for filing daily returns of explosives by manufacturers, magazine holders and concerned stakeholders be implemented effectively to maintain accountability.
(vi) The access to the Online monitoring portal may be extended to the Taluk level Monitoring Committee, District Administration and police department under the respective jurisdiction. The same be accessed regularly for monitoring and compliance.
(vii) Barcoding of the packages of explosives is already in place, however, each cartridge item needs barcoding to avoid tampering of the details of the manufacturer and others.
It has been noted that "System on Explosives Tracking and tracing" (SETT) has already been launched by PESO. Phase one has been completed and Phase II i.e. 2d barcode on intermediate packages has been made operational recently.
(viii) Appropriate Training may be imparted to the Taluk level Monitoring Committee by Chief Controller of Explosives or his representative from Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) and Directorate General of Mines and Safety (DGMS) from time to time to address the issues of concern in connection with the technical and legal provisions.
22(ix) A Taluk Level Monitoring Committee comprising of Police Department, Revenue Department, Department of Mines & Geology, Road Transport Department may be constituted by District Administration for addressing issues related to illegal usage, possession, storage, handling, transportation, sale and disposal of explosives.
(x) The joint committee also recommends that the concerned local authority of the state government shall ensure that due permission and license from concerned authority as stipulated under the Mines Act, 1952, The Major Mineral Development and Regulation Act, 1957, The Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosive Rules, 2008 be obtained by the owners, stakeholders, magazine holders etc. Then, the same may also be monitored by the local authority and Department of Mines and Geology of the State Government.
(xi) Besides above, relevant provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, The Major Mineral Development and Regulation Act, 1957, The Explosives Act, 1884, the regulations, rules, by-laws, orders and circulars made there under need to be adhered stringently for safe operations of Mines and handling of explosives.
9.2 Restoration Plan The blast site is a barren land with dry to scanty vegetation and has not witnessed any damage to the flora, fauna, and livestock except loss of lives (06 persons). Therefore, the joint committee is of the view that the particular site does not require any restoration measures.
CHAPTER 10 CONCLUDING REMARKS The joint committee hereby submits that the main cause of the blast/accident is due to illegal possession and inappropriate handling of the explosive material by unauthorized persons who were working in M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP (Stone Crusher), under the verbal instructions of the owners of M/s Shridi Sai Aggregates (Stone Quarry) and and Shree Bhramaravasini M- sanders LLP in Hirenagavalli Village, Karnataka.
The joint committee ascertains the fact that the above accident has occurred due to mere negligence and ignorance of the employees of M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP, Hirenagavalli village, Karnataka. This also determines that the owners of both M/s Shridi Sai Aggregates (Stone Quarry) and M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP (Stone Crusher) have not taken due diligence and responsibility in handling the explosives and merely misguided the employees/staff of the Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP crusher by taking risk of their lives.
23It was also observed that the owner of the quarry has non-complied with the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and The Explosives Act, 1884 which has been mentioned above under section 5.3 of the report, for due cognizance of concerned departments under Government of Karnataka and taking appropriate actions against M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates, Hirenagavalli, Karnataka.
It is submitted that, the blast site at Sy.No.168 of Varlakonda Village having latitude 13°37'08" N and longitude 77°45'50" E is outside the leasehold area of the mine/quarry thus blast site does not come under the purview of the Mines Act, 1952. However, the management of the mine/quarry belonging to M/s Shridi Sai Aggregates has violated the provisions of the Mines Act, 1952 and allied legislation framed thereunder, although they were found operating the mine/quarry in a valid lease.
With regard to loss of human lives, the joint committee submits that the compensation has been calculated with the available information of the employees who died in the blast accident. However, as reported by the police department certain information regarding exact date of birth, date of joining, qualifications and work experience of the employees etc. could not be made available, as the same is under investigation.
Further, the joint committee recommends that, the compensation (calculated based on Employees Compensation Act, 1923 & as per the Supreme Court Orders in civil appeal No. 6339 of 2019 and civil appeal no. 3483 of 2008) may be paid proportionately by both the units as the offense of illegally possessing the explosives was committed by M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates and the employees were instructed by the both the units to dispose off the illegally possessed explosives i.e. M/s Shirdi Sai Aggregates and M/s Shree Bhramaravasini M-sanders LLP (located at a distance of about 01 km from the blast site in Hirenagavalli village, Chikkaballapur, Karnataka). As each of the above units are owned by one owner, one co-owner and other partners respectively, the payment has to be made proportionately according to the shares in the unit(s) by the owners, co-owners and other partners (the details are not known to the joint committee and the same may be decided by the local disbursing authority).
The joint committee also submits that there were no major impact on the environment (flora, fauna, water body, atmosphere and livestock etc.) as informed by the team of officials comprised of district administration, Superintendent of Police, District Health Officer, Department of Mines and Geology etc. who visited the blast site immediately after the incident on 23.02.2021. Then, the joint committee also made a visit to survey the blast site and it was observed that the blast site is a barren land with dry to scanty vegetation and has not witnessed any damage to the flora, fauna, livestock except loss of lives (06 persons). Therefore, the joint committee is of the view that the particular site does not require any restoration measures.
It was also informed that the blast occurred for less than a minute and effects were negligible except huge noise and dust/gases in 24 the atmosphere. Therefore, considering the above facts, the joint committee felt that the environmental compensation is not required to be calculated. However, the District Administration and concerned department may also provide the composition of the explosives that was involved in the blast / accident (after the complete investigation by the Central Investigation Department) to Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO) for assessing the possible impact due to its chemicals on the environment."
Consideration of the report and findings on the issues involved
5. Inspite of notice to the State PCB, the Director, Mines, Karnataka and the District Magistrate, Chikkaballapur, none has put in appearance. Only appearance is on behalf of the CPCB. We have considered the report and heard learned Counsel for the CPCB. He submitted that there is no reason for not accepting the report. We have thus to proceed further in the matter based on the factual situation depicted in the report. There is no reason not to accept the observations on factual aspects by the independent credible Committee appointed by the Tribunal.
6. The questions to be gone into are Cause of incident Persons responsible - liability of the State for failure of regulatory regime Quantum of compensation - directions for payment Need for remedial measures Compliance Cause of incident
7. It is clear from the report that the cause of accident is the blast due to illegal possession and inappropriate handling of the explosive material in connection with the activities of M/s Shridi Sai Aggregates 25 (Stone Quarry) and Shree Bhramaravasini M-Sanders LLP in Hirenagavalli village, Karnataka.
Persons responsible - liability of the State for failure of regulatory regime
8. The Committee has identified the persons responsible for the incident - illegal handling of explosives in violation of the Explosive Rules and the safety norms. M/s Shridi Sai Aggregates (Stone Quarry) and Shree Bhramaravasini M-Sanders LLP have been identified as violators.
They are thus primarily responsible to pay the compensation assessed.
The District Magistrate, Chikkaballapur may require them to pay the amount accordingly subject to their remedy of moving this Tribunal if they have objections to the findings in the report about their liability. The State has failed to put in appearance or give any explanation for its failure to protect lives of citizens by enforcing the law. The reason may be negligence of the concerned officers or incompetence. In such circumstances, liability is of the law violators as well as the State. The same is joint and several. If the violators do not pay the compensation and the District Magtistrate is unable to recover the same, the victims have to be compensated by the State and the State can recover the amount from erring parties. We have taken this view recently while dealing with another similar incident in Gujrat where hazardous activity was found to be operated illegally resulting in deaths and injuries and the violator did not appear to have known sources for payment of compensation. Vide order dated 23.03.2021 in O.A. No. 258/2020, In Re:
News item published in the "Indian Express" dated 04.11.2020 titled "Ahmedabad: Nine killed as godown collapses after factory blast" this Tribunal held that the State will be liable to pay compensation to the victims except the victims who was responsible for the incident with 26 liberty to recover from erring persons. Relevant extract from the order is as follows:-
"9. ......For death of all other persons and injured, the State will be liable to pay compensation, without prejudice to its right to recover the same from the violators of law or erring officers, following due process of law. The responsibility for compliance will be of the Chief Secretary, Gujarat, through the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad. In the light of directions already issued for preventive action by way of compliance of laid down safety norms, the State of Gujrat needs to take remedial measures to ensure that such incidents do not occur and hold accountable persons responsible for failure of the oversight. We also direct a joint Committee of Director, Industrial Safety and Health (DISH), Gujarat, and State PCB in coordination with respective Municipal Corporations and District Magistrates to conduct survey of the entire State to ascertain if any other such activities are going on, and if so to take remedial action by way of closing such illegal activities. The State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The said Committee may give its report to the Chief Secretary, Gujarat within three months for further remedial action."
Principle of absolute liability
9. It is established law since MC Mehta (1987) 1 SCC 395 and later judgements that liability of the person undertaking hazardous activities for commercial gains for any accident and loss is absolute.
Quantum of compensation
10. From the report, it is clear that six persons have died and one injured on account of the blast due to unscientific handling of the explosive violation of law. We also find that scale of compensation based on restitution principle needs to be awarded. Procedure of this Tribunal is summary and akin to public law remedy. Compensation can be assessed on reasonable basis guided by restitution principle atleast at floor level, leaving other remedies of the victims open. Thus, broadly agreeing with the Committee, we uphold the compensation assessed by the Committee i.e. Sh Uma Mahesh - Rs. 15,12,450/-
Sh Ramu - Rs. 16,14,600/-
27Sh Mahesh Singh Bora - Rs. 15,59,850/-
Sh Gangadhar Babu - Rs. 3569400/-
Sh Abhilash @ Abhinayak - Rs. 2074200/-
Sh Chikkodi Murali @ Muralikrishna - Rs. 2217000/-"
11. Accordingly, we hold that if the compensation assessed is not paid by the violators within one month, the same has to be paid by the State of Karntaka through the District Magistrate with right to recover the same from the violators. Compliance will be responsibility of the Chief Secretary. Payment be ensured within one month from today. We request the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to provide legal aid to ensure that payment is made to genuine heirs of the deceased.
Need for remedial measures
12. The Committee has recommended measures for avoiding such occurrences in future mainly by strict enforcement of the Explosive Rules. We accept the recommendations of the Committee and direct that necessary steps to be taken by the Chief Controller of Explosives, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Nagpur and Director Mines, Karnataka to take further follow up action. They may also coordinate with the concerned other concerned authorities, including the District Magistrate and the police authorities in respect of action under the criminal law. Mechanism may be evolved to provide information to all concerned about the mine operators procuring explosives, the area where they will use store and handle and safety aspects which are to be followed. Substance of relevant part of this order and other regulatory measures be duly published in vernacular for information of the inhabitants and for better compliance.
2813. For this purpose, we direct the Chief Secretary, Karnataka to monitor remedial action in terms of the above order in coordination with other concerned Authorities, including the District Magistrate, Chikkaballapur and Director of Mines. The Chief Secretary may oversee taking of safety measures in the light of the report to prevent such occurrences not only at the place of occurrence but also any other location of the State where there is possibility of such occurrences. The Chief Secretary may send a status of compliance report within three months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
14. We place on record our appreciation for the task executed by the Committee. CPCB may convey this observation to the members of the Committee. The report of the Committee may be placed on websites of the State PCB and the CPCB for purpose of reference for six months.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the, Chief Secretary, Karnataka, Chief Controller of Explosives, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Nagpur, Director Mines, Karnataka, CPCB, State PCB, District Magistrate, Chikkaballapur and the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Karnataka, by e-mail for compliance.
List for consideration of report on 09.11.2021.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM M. Sathyanarayanan, JM 29 Brijesh Sethi, JM Dr.Nagin Nanda, EM June 11, 2021 Original Application No. 59/2021 A 30