Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. On 01.10.2015, while Petitioner was undertaking the work of deep hole blasting during noon hours, an unfortunate incident of fly-rock landing over the houses of the villagers took place, due to which villagers protested and stopped the work in question. Immediately, Petitioner vide its letter dated 07.10.2015 informed the Respondent-BCCL about the aforesaid incident and requested BCCL to resolve the issue.

8. On 10.10.2015, an inspection was conducted by DGMS regarding Maheshpur colliery on the basis of complaints of villagers regarding falling of stones in their houses/hutments due to blasting work. In the Inspection Report, it was noticed that manpower and machinery of the Petitioner were deployed at the site and were found idle due to stoppage of work by villagers and it was further noticed that open cast mining work was being undertaken which was only at a distance of 75 meters to 80 meters from the surface structures like, water filter tanks, residential colony of Respondent-BCCL, Kali Temple, as well as kutcha houses of some of the labourers who were residing there. Accordingly, pursuant to Inspection Report, recommendation was made by the Inspecting team to DGMS for withdrawal of permission granted by the Directorate for carrying out blasting work until all permanent buildings, houses, dwellings, railway or surface structures are not removed within 100 meters distance of the site of blasting. Consequent upon the aforesaid recommendation, DGMS withdrew the permission earlier granted for doing deep hole blasting by explosives and, hence, no work could have been carried out in the mines.

9. The fact further reveals that the petitioner obtained information under Right to Information Act, 2005 from the office of the DGMS, wherein it has been informed to the Petitioner vide Information dated 30.09.2021 (Annexure R/12) that BCCL, after recall of the permission granted by DGMS, has not filed any further application for grant of permission. On the strength of the above, it is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent-BCCL, without adequately rehabilitating and re-settling the residents of the area, contrary to the permission granted by DGMS for carrying out blasting work, invited the tender and, due to the activity of blasting being undertaken within 100 meters of the location of the habitants, continuous protests were made by the habitants and, ultimately, work was stopped within a short time of three months only, on 1st October, 2015 and even DGMS subsequently withdrew the consent earlier granted on 18.11.2015.

Petitioner has annexed, along with its Rejoinder-Affidavit, the report of the Inspecting team of DGMS dated 10.10.2015 (vide Annexure- R/10). A bare perusal of the said report would reveal that on complaint being made by the residents of Maheshpur Area about "large size of flying fragments falling on the Kutcha houses of contractor, labourer due to heavy blasting operated by Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd." an Inspecting team was constituted by DGMS to enquire as to whether the activity of blasting was carried out in terms of the permission granted by it to Respondent-BCCL i.e. carrying out „blasting activity beyond 100 meters from the habitants at the site". In the said detailed report, following conclusion was arrived at by the Inspecting team of DGMS and, accordingly, recommendation was made for withdrawal of permission granted in favour of BCCL till all the permanent buildings, houses, dwellings, railways or surface structure within 100 meters of the site of blasting are vacated/demolished and rendered uninhabitable.

33. Aforesaid admission of BCCL in its Counter Affidavit clearly reveals the fact that BCCL invited tender without even clearing the houses at the site beyond 100 meters as stipulated in DGMS permission for carrying out mining work by use of explosives. The work was required to be stopped by Petitioner on 01.10.2015 i.e. only within three months of the contract due to non-clearance of the site and subsequent withdrawal of permission by DGMS. Petitioner has further brought on record an information obtained under the R.T.I. Act, wherein Petitioner has been informed by DGMS vide its letter dated 30.09.2021 that permission, which was earlier granted to BCCL for carrying out mining activity vide permission dated 13.05.2013 has not been restored by DGMS. Said information obtained under the R.T.I. Act reads as under:-