The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5455 of 2024 SB Egg Production having it registered office at Bisodih, Mauza- Nawalshahi, P.O.-Nawalshahi P.S.-Nawalshahi, District-Koderma through its Partner Shiv Kumar, aged about years 27, Son Of Vijay Kumar Mehta, Resident of Village Domchanch, P.O. & P.S. Domchanch, District-Koderma-825418, Jharkhand … … .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Mines Commissioner having registered office at Nepal House, 1st Floor, Room No. 112, Doranda, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, District-Ranchi Jharkhand-834002, 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, District Collectorate Building, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma, District-Koderma, Jharkhand – 825410, 4. The District Mining Officer, Koderma, District Mining Office, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma, District-Koderma, Jharkhand-825410, 5. The Circle Officer, Koderma, District Collectorate Building, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma, District-Koderma, Jharkhand-825410, 6. Directorate General of Mines Safety, through its Director General, Hirapur, P.O. & P.S.-Hirapur, Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826001 7. M/s New Jharkhand Stone Mines, Bisodih, Nawalshi, Koderma, PO & PS Nawalshi, through its Project Director namely Sanjay Kumar Ray, Village Masnodih, P.O.-Masnodih, P.S.-Domchanch, District-Koderma, Jharkhand-825418, …………… Respondents --------- CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner For the Resp-State For Resp. No. 7 For Resp. No. 6 --------- : Ms. Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate : Ms. Manjusha Priya, Advocate. : Ms. Ushma Pandey, Advocate : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate. : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III. Ms. Rishi Bharati, A.C. to A.A.G.-III. : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate. : Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate. : Mr. Sameer Ranjan, Advocate. : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Sr.Panel Counsel (UOI). --------- 03/Dated:17.10.2024 M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral) 1. Heard the parties. -1 of 4- 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, which is an M.S.M.E. engaged in poultry activity complaining against certain blasting activity being conducted by the 7th respondent while doing mining activity pursuant to a mining lease granted to the 7th respondent on 11th August, 2023. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that owing to continuous vibrations in blasting in close proximity to the petitioner’s existing farm in violation of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961, the birds in the petitioner’s farm were affected and some of them died. According to the petitioner, there was uncontrolled and unauthorized blasting being carried out by respondent no. 7, which resulted in the petitioner being forced to shut down its farm allegedly causing huge loss and deprivation of the petitioner’s right to carry out credit business. It is also alleged that the petitioner, on account of the activities of the 7th respondent, was unable to repay the loan amount borrowed from the Bank of India resulting in the petitioner’s loan account having been declared as an N.P.A. through a notice dated 10.07.2023. The petitioner has alleged that it had complained against the activities of the 7th respondent to the official respondents, but they did not do anything. 4. On 03.10.2024, we have issued notice to the respondent no. 7 and asked the counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 5 and 6 to also obtain instructions. 5. The 6th respondent has filed the counter affidavit stating the following: -2 of 4- “13) That as far as para 11 is concerned it is stated and submitted that based on a complaint of Shri Shiv Kumar, one of the Partners of M/s SB Egg Production, Bisodih, Koderma forwarded by District Mining Officer, Koderma, the said mine of respondent no 7 was inspected by Dy Director of Mines Safety, Koderma Region on 23.05.2024. During the inspection, the following contraventions of the provisions of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 were observed report dated 24.05.2024: - Regulation 106(1)(a)(ii): Towards the northern, southern and western sides of the mine, the height of the first bench in topsoil was about 5m which was more than the permitted height of 1.5 m the in i. ii. Regulation 164(1-8)(a): A Layer Poultry Farm House of permanent nature not belonging to the owner lies within the Danger Zone, i.e. 300 m of the mine and boundary and a delay of 25 milliseconds between successive shots fired was used in blasting in the mine which is less than the permitted delay of half a second (i,e. 500 milliseconds). iii. Regulation 106(2)(b): Permission is not obtained from this to use heavy machinery used for digging, Directorate excavation and removal or material in the mine. iv. Regulation 115(1): The top of the opencast mine was not kept securely fenced. 14) That it is further stated and submitted that for contravention Nos. (i) and (iv), Violation Letter has been issued by the Director of Mines Safety, Koderma on 29.05.2024 vide letter no 761. Further for contravention Nos. (ii) and (ii), a letter has been issued to sump casting operations and deployment of heavy earth moving machinery in the mine by the Director of Mines Safety, Koderma on 29.05.2024 vide letter no 762 and a copy of the same was forwarded to the District Mining Officer, Koderma. 15) That it is further stated that on not receiving and reply from the mine management (respondent no 7), a reminder letter had been issued by the Director of Mines Safety, Koderma vide letter no 1307 dated 06.09.2024. The response of the same is still awaited by the office of answering respondent.” 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 7th respondent contended, inter alia, that the business activity of the petitioner had stopped much before the grant of mining lease to the respondent and the petitioner’s business activity has not been affected by any activity being conducted by the 7th respondent. He, however, admitted that the 7th respondent did receive the letter dated 29.05.2024 of the Director of Mines Safety, Koderma. By stating that the violations mentioned in the said letter have since been stopped, he, however, stated that no -3 of 4- reply has been given thereto. He also stated that his client has denied receiving the letter dated 06.09.2024. 7. He also stated that his client would ensure that the violations pointed out in the counter affidavit of the 6th respondent will be immediately addressed and mining activity would be done by his client strictly in compliance with the regulations referred to above. 8. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, without going into the issue as to whether the petitioner’s business activity had been affected by the mining activity of the 7th respondent or not, and granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum if the petitioner intends to claim any compensation for the loss allegedly caused to the petitioner’s business activity by the mining activity conducted by the 7th
Decision
respondent, this writ petition is disposed off by directing the 7th respondent to strictly adhere to the regulations mentioned (supra). 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed off. (M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) N.A.F.R. APK/VK -4 of 4-