MOHAMMED HAROON ANSARI AND ANR.versusTHE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, A.P.

        MOHAMMED HAROON ANSARI AND ANR.                                 A
                         v.
 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, A.P.

                        DECEMBER 12, 2003

          [S. R.AJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]                      B
    Environment :

      Pollution-Mining activities-In residential locality-Impact on
Ground Level Service Reservoir (GLSR):-Safe distance-Maintaining of-'- C
Expert Committee appointed by High Court recommended a safe distance
of 1 KM-However, High Court extended it to 2 KM-On appeal, Supreme
Court appointed an Expert Committee-Accepting the Committee's report,
Held : 1 KM is a safe distance between the site of the quarry leases and
residential locality or GLSR.
                                                                        D
     A Petition in the nature of a public interest litigation was filed in
the High Court praying for a direction to the respondents to take
action against the illegal blasting an" crushing of granite stones as it
was causing dust pollution in the residential are~s. The expert commit-
tee appointed by the High Court recommended that mining activities E
could take place beyond a safe distance of 1 KM. However, the High
Court directed that no quarry lease should be granted within a distance
of 2 KM from the residential locality or Ground Level Service
Reservoir.

    On appeal, this Court appointed an expert committee, which also     F
recommended a safe distance of 1 KM.

     Disposing of the appeal, the Court

      HELD : 1.1. It is unnecessary to impose a condition that the
distance of 1 KM for carrying out· the quarry activities should be G
converted to 2 KM. The affidavit of Pollution Control Board indicates
that if proper safeguards are adorted as indicated in the said affidavit,
it will not cause any air, water or noise pollution, much less, dust
particles affect the water supply system in Ground Level Service
Reservoir (GLSR). [722-F-G]                                               H
                                  715
    716                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A       2. It is, therefore, directed that the order made by the High Court
    be modified by directing that the distanc~ of 1 KM is a safe distance
    between the site of the quarry leases and the residential localities or
    GLSR. (722-G-HJ

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION               .Civil Appeal Nos. 1907-
B 1908 of 2000.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.97 ofthe Andhra Pradesh
    High Court in W.P. No. 7326/97 and Order dated 2.12.97 in W.P.M.P. No.
    33976 of 1997.
c
                                       WITH

          C.A. Nos. 1909-1910, 1911-1912 and 1913-1914 of 2000.

          K.N. Rawal, Solicitor General, (A.C.), R. Mohan, P. Niroop, R.
D Chandrashekhar Reddy, Pavan ~umar, Hari Shankar K., A.T.M. Sampath,
    V. Balaji, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Md. Wasay Khan, K.C. Sudarshan, D.
    Mahesh Babl, Nikhil Nayyar, Mrs. Unnila Sirur, T.V. Ratnam, K. Subba
    Rao, Anil T j°dale and Guntur Prabhakar for the appearing Parties.

E         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          RAJENDRA BABU, J. : On the basis of a letter sent to the Chief
    Justice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, a petition in the nature of
    public interest litigation was entertained to direct the respondents to take
    action against the illegal blasting and cr~shing of granite for concrete metal
F   in the areas of the Goldodi, Nanakramguda, hills ofKhanapur and Kokapet
    in Rangareddy District as a result of which a lot of fine granite silica dust
    is entering into the atmosphere which causes a disease called 'Silicosis'
    to the residents nearby. Two writ petitions were filed by the appellants
    in Civil Appeal Nos. 1907-1908/2000 calling for records of proceedings
G   before the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad in respect
    of grant of lease over an extent of 5 acres in survey No. 239 of Kokapet
    village, ·Rangareddy District, for quashing the same and for granting
    appropriate consequential reliefs. Similarly, certain other -persons also
    filed writ petitions challenging the action of the Government in stopping
H   the mining operations in different areas of Kokapet village.
M.H. ANSARI v. DISIT. COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 717

      The High Court called for a report from the Assistant Director of A
Mines and Geology. The said Report revealed that there are four quarry
leases and three stone crushers in Kokapet village, Rajendranagar Mandal;
that the quarries and crushers are at a distance of 2 kms to the South of
Kokapet viii.age and 20 kms from Hyderabad; that the ground level water
reservoir of Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage ~oard B
is located at a distance of 1 km from the stone quarry, which supplies water
to the city of Hyderabad; that the Osmansagar lake is also located at about
3 kms South West of these quarries and crushers. After receipt of the
Report of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, the High Court
impleaded 17 stone industries and also directed issue of notice to the
Go_vernment of Andhra Pradesh to appoint a Committee of Experts to C
examine whether quarrying, crushing and blasting activities close to
Osmansagar lake and the ground level water reservoir of Hyderabad
Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage Board are endangered by such
operations and submit a report of the said Committee to the High Court.
                                                                              D
     A Committee, consisting of Shri T. Chattarjee, Member Secretary,
A.P. Pollution Control Board, Shri K.P. Chandrasekhar Rao, Director
(Technical), Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Works and Sewerage Board,
Shri K.V. Rao, Shri T.V. Chowdary, Director of Mines and Geology,
Hyderabad and Shri P. Babu Rao, Director, Ground Water Department, E
submitted its report on 4.8.1997. Conclusions and recommendations of
the Committee are as under :-

        "(1) As a result of blasting in the quarries, within a radius of 1
        k.m. the shock waves which are generated, pass through the joints
        especially the horizontal joints and create vibrations in the nearby p
        areas. The reservoir which is close by is also within the range
        of its impact. Higher than present intensities of blasting will
        definitely cause damage to the reservoir structure. Thus, blasting
        and quarrying within a range of 1 k.m., already prohibited, must
        not be permitted.
                                                                              G
        (2) To prevent unathorisied quarrying, it is suggested that the
        approach road must be closed after the gateway of the GLSR and
        all activities of unauthorised quarrying must be stopped forthwith.
        Security staff can be contracted for the purpose by the GLSR
        authorities.                                                 H·
    718                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A           (3) The authorised quarry and crusher company will lose approach
            and can be permitted to build another approach to their facilities
            from the Eastern side.                                        '

            (4) The quarries on the northern flanks of the hill range at a
            distance of l km from the reservoir will not have any impact on
B           the reservoir as the joint patterns/systems in the areas. The GLSR
            is on one side of the dispersion point, the authorised quarries are
            on the other side of it. However, as a precautionary measure,
            the intensity of blasting must be kept at the minimum by fixing
            the limit of number holes, depth of hole. and quantity of explosive
c           per blasting.

             (5) There is no impact on Osmansagar lake due to blasting beyond
             I km radius."

D           However, the High Court, after noticing various aspects attributed
    to in the Report, held as follows :-

             "The distance of 1 kilometre, according to expert committee is a
             safe distance between the site under quarry lease and the residen-
             tial locality or GLSR. In fact, the distance between them is not
E            only to he safe, but it should be safer. As the residents of the
             village situated nearby are experiencing tremors as well as dust
             pollution, it is always better that no quarry lease should be granted
             within a distance of2 kilometers in future. Therefore, respond-
             ents 7 to 23 cannot operate quarry ieases and stone crushers. It
F            is, ~owever, open to them to apply for areas for quarry lease
             beyond 2 kilometers from residential areas and GLSR."

           On the basis of this conclusion, the High Court set aside the leases
    granted in favour of 17 respondents, including the appellants in these
G   appeals before us. The order of the High Court is in challenge in these
    appeals.

           When the matter came up before this Court, by an order made on
    17.2.1998, this Court stayed the order of the High Court in so far as the
    appellants before this Court is cor.cerned and restrained.the appellants from
H   carrying on any mining and stone crushing operations within a distance of
M.H. ANSARI v. DISIT. COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 719

I kilometer from the lake or service reservoir and 500 meters from human A
habitation. Subsequently, this Court granted leave in all these matters and,
by an order made on 4.3.2003, asked the parties to get a report from a
competent institution or organisation which has experience in the field to
make a proper assessment as to the impact on the GLSR in relation to the
activities carried on by the stone crushers and quarries and file a report. B
The said Report has been made by Center of Mining Environment, Indian
School of Mines, Dhanbad making an assessment of the impacts of stone
quarries and stone crushers on the ground level service reservoir on the
banks of Osmansagar lake on the outskirts of Hyderabad city. The said
Committee consisted of Prof. N.C. Saxena, Professor and Dean who was
a mining engineer and mining environment expert having over 35 years          c
experience, Prof. Gurdeep Singh, Head, Center of Mining Enviroriment
who was an expert on environmental pollution having over 20 years
experience, Dr. (Mrs.) Rekha Ghosh, Asst. Prof. who was environmental
geologist and hydrogeologist having over 35 years experience and Dr. A.K.
Pal, Asst. Prof. who was an expert in environmental pollution having 20 D
years experience. The Committee, after studying the area, nature of mining
activities, change in land use, topography, ground vibrations due to
blasting, air quality assessment, water quality assessment, noise quality
assessment, concluded as follows :-

         "Impacts on Ground Level Service Reservoir (GLSR)
                                                                              E
         • As seen in Fig. 1a the GLSR lies on the opposite flank cf the
         hill with respect of the sites of the quarries of Mis Saleem Metal
         Industries,, M/s Sulfi Metal Industries, and Mis Al-Hira Metal
         Industries at an aerial distance of about 1.2 km.                    F
         • The blast vibration studies at the site of GLSR indicated that the
         level of the vibrations for the nature of blasting done at the
         quarries was such that it was below the lowest detectable limit of
         the instrument (0.51 mm/sec) and hence below the permissible G
         limit (10 mm/sec for dominant frequency >25 Hz) for the objects
         of historic importance and sensitive structures. Therefore, the
         GLSR is not likely to be affected by blasting at the quarries of
         Mis Saleem Metal Industries, Mis Sulfi Metal Industries, and M/s
                    .                                  4
         Al-Hira Metal Industries.
                                                                              H
    720             SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A         • It is observed from the wind-rose diagram in Fig. 8 that the
           predominant wind direction in the area was from the side of the
          ·GLSR towards the quarries and crusher sites ofM/s Saleem Metal
           Industries, Mis Sulfi Metal Industries, and Mis Al-Hira Metal
           Industries. The concentrations of SPM, RPM, Ox and S02 in
           the air were well withi.!1. the permissible limits of 200 ug/m3, 100
B
           ug/m3, 80 ug/m3 and·80 ~g/m3 respectively for residential areas.
           The concentration of PBS ·in the ambient air was below the
           detectable limit of <0.6 mg/m3. Hence, the activities at the
           quarries and the stone crushers were not causing any air pollution ·
           at the site of GLSR.
c
          • The drainage/watershed (Fig. 2) study indicates that the GLSR
          and the quarries and stone crushers of M/s Saleem Metal Indus-
          tries; Mis Sulfi Metal Industries, and Mis Al-Hira Metal Indus-
          tries lie in two different watersheds. Hence,. the run-off from the
D         quarries and stone crushers cannot reach the site of the GLSR.
          Thus, there is no question of water at GLSR getting polluted due
          to the activities at these quarries and cru_shers.

          Impacts on Osmansa'gar Lake

E         • As seen in Fig. la Osmansagar lake lies on the opposite side
          of the hill from the sites of the quarries and stone crushers of
          M/s Saleem Metal Industries, Mis Sulfi Metal Industries, and
          M/s Al-Hira Metal Industries at a distance of about 1.5 km. The
          dam of the lake is at a distance of about 4 km from the quarries.
F         Als.o the lake lies in a different area/watershed as is evi.dent from
          the drainage map of the area shown in Fig: 2. Hence, the run-
          off from the quarries and stone crushers. can not reach the lake
          and pollute the water in the lake.

          • The water quality studies for the lake water (samples W7 & W8)
G         indicate that the quality of the water available in the lake was
          conforming to the potable water standards (IS· 10.500)

          • The ground vibrations due to blasting at the quarries of Mis
          Saleem Metal Industries, Mis Sulfi Metal Industries, and Mis Al-
H         Hira Metal Industries would not reach the darn site of the lake as




                                                                                  ..
M.H. ANSARI v. DISTI. COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 721

        its distance was about 4 km from the mines and the vibration A
        observations at GLSR at a distance of about l .tkm indicates that
        the level of the vibrations was below the measuring limit of the
        instrument.

        • In view of the above discussions Osmansagar lake is not likely B
        to be affected in any manner due to mining and stone crushing
        activities of Mis Saleem Metal Industries, Mis Sulfi Metal Indus-
        tries, and Mis Al-Hira Metal Industries.

        Impacts on Kokapet Village

              Kokapet village lies at a distance of about 2 km from the site
        of the quarries and stone crushers of Mis Saleem Metal Industries,
        Mis Sulfi Metal Industries, and Mis Al-Hira Metal Industries.
        The mining and stone crushing operations of these industries
        would not affect the village in any manner because of the D
        following reasons :

        • The village being at a distance of about 2 km would not receive
        the blast vibrations to affect any building or structure because the
        level of the vibrations at a distance of 1.2 km at the site of the
        GLSR was below the detectable limit of the ihstrument.               E
        • The ambient air quality at the village was good as the concen-
        trations of the SPM, RPM, Nox, So2 and Pb in the ambiettt air
        were well below the permissible limits for the residential areas (24
        hour average). Hence, the quarrying and stone crushing activities F
        at Mis Saleem Metal Industries, Mis Sulfi Metal Industries, and
        Mis Al-Hira Metal Industries were not causing any air pollution
        problem at the village.

        • The village would also not receive any run-off from the site of
        the quarries and the stone crushers because even if being in the G
        same drainage system the run-off will be arrested in the water
        impoundment before the village."

    We called upon the Pollution Control Board to respond to the Report
submitted by the Center of Mining Environment, Dhanbad, but the H
    722                SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A   Pollution Control Board has v not contradicted what has been stated in the
    said Report. On the other hand, it was averred by them that (a) the RSPM,
    SPM NOX and S02 are within the Ambient Air Quality Standards
    prescribed for residential zones, (b) Noise levels are also within the
    permissible limits at some crushers, (c) the run off from the stone crushers
B   reaches in the downstream of Osmailsagar lake, that is, Musi river as seen
    from the drainage map. Pollution Control Board further stated in their
    affidavit that :-

             "The impact studies done by the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad
             concluded that there will not be any adverse impacts on GLSR
c            or Osmansagar lake due to the mining and stone crushing
             activities of the three crushers which are located about 1.2 km
             away from GLSR. From this observation, it can also be concluded
             that there will not be any impact on GLSR or lake from any other
             existing crushers as they are further away from these three
D            crushers on which studies are made by the ISM."

          We may, at once, notice that the High Court was persuaded by public
    interest involved in the matter in initiating proceedings on the basis of a
    letter sent to it. The anxiety of the High Court was further exhibited by
E   its concern in the matter in constituting an expert committee and although
    that Expert Committee stated that a distance of 1 km is a safe distance
    between the site under quarry lease and the residential locality or GLSR,
    but in order to be safer than what the Expert Committee observed, the High
    Court increased the distance by another 1 km. Particularly when the
    assessment made by the Center of Mining Environment, Indian School of
F   Mines, Dhanbad, concluded that there is no impact by the quarry operations
    carried on by the appellants before us on the GLSR or Osmansagar lake
    or nearby residential locality, it is unnecessary to impose condition that
    the distance of I km for carrying out the quarry activities should be
    converted to 2 km. The affidavit of Pollution Control Board indicates that
G   if proper safeguards are adopted as indicated in the said affidavit, it will
    not cause any air, water or noise pollution, much less dust articles affect
    the water supply system in GLSR or Osmansagar lake. We, therefore,
    direct that the order made by the High Court is modified by directing that
    the distance of 1 km is a safe distance between the site of the quarry leases
H   and the residential localities or GLSR or Osmansagar lake. The guidelines
MJI. ANSARI v. DISTI. COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 723

issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board specified I km to A
be safe distance between crusher and human habitation from 17.01.1997.
Prior to that it was only 500 meters away from national Highway and 100
meters away from the State Highway, Major District roads and other roads.
That is why this Court granted an interim order earlier and directed that
no mining and stone crushing operations shall be carried on within a B
distance of 1 km from lake or reservoir and 500 meters from human
habitations. This order will hold good in respect of all such mining leases
which have been granted pnor to 17 .12.1996. It is not necessary to advert
to any other details or arguments raised in the petitions filed before the
High Court or in appeals before this Court. Suffice it to observe that the C
impugned order of the High Court shall stand modified only to the extent
indicated by us and all other terms set out by the High Court in regard to
the safeguards to be adopted in maintenance of environment shall remain
intact. Further, it is certainly necessary that the appellants before carrying
on any of the mining and stone crushing activities obtain necessary
clearance from the Pollution Control Board and must comply by such D
conditions as may be imposed by the Pollution Control Board. It is open
to the Pollution Control Board to take such action as may be necessary to
enforce the conditions imposed by them under the relevant statutes.

     The appeals shall stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.            E
v.s.s.                                              Appeals disposed of.