Blasting for highway widening may still trigger mining, explosives and environmental compliance before work can continue.

Blasting for National Highway widening can still amount to mining activity when it involves quarrying rock and removing subsoil minerals, so compliance with the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board is required before continuing work. The activity may also fall within the Mines Act, the Explosives Rules and the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, making mining safety and licensing requirements applicable, including proper qualifications for blasting personnel. Environmental clearance and expert assessment may also be necessary where the scale of blasting raises risks of air pollution, noise, vibration and damage to nearby property, and the district administration must verify these requirements before permitting further blasting.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether blasting for National Highway widening could be carried on without obtaining a mining permit under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board; (ii) whether the activity attracted the Mines Act, the Explosives Rules and the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, thereby requiring stricter licensing and safety compliance; (iii) whether environmental clearance and expert assessment of blasting impact were necessary before permitting further blasting.

Issue (i): whether blasting for National Highway widening could be carried on without obtaining a mining permit under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules and consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board.

Analysis: The work, though undertaken for road widening, involved quarrying of rock and removal of subsoil minerals by blasting. The conditions in the district administration's permission and the scheme of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules required compliance with the mining regime when mining became necessary. The Court treated the activity as one involving extraction of minor minerals and held that the earlier assumption that such work was outside the permit regime was incorrect. The Pollution Control Board's view that consent was unnecessary for this kind of blasting was held to be contrary to the statutory scheme, since the blasting had environmental and safety consequences akin to quarrying operations.

Conclusion: The 7th respondent was required to obtain a mining permit and consent to operate before continuing blasting.

Issue (ii): whether the activity attracted the Mines Act, the Explosives Rules and the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, thereby requiring stricter licensing and safety compliance.

Analysis: The Court held that the excavation and blasting constituted mining activity within the meaning of the Mines Act and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. The exclusions under the Mines Act were not available where explosives were used and the excavation conditions were not shown to be satisfied. Once the Mines Act applied, the supporting regulations and the qualifications for blasting personnel under the Explosives Rules and the Metalliferous Mines Regulations also became applicable. A short-firer's certificate alone was insufficient for blasting in a mine, and the activity had to comply with the stricter regulatory framework governing mining safety.

Conclusion: The blasting operations were subject to the Mines Act, the Explosives Rules and the Metalliferous Mines Regulations.

Issue (iii): whether environmental clearance and expert assessment of blasting impact were necessary before permitting further blasting.

Analysis: The Court held that the scale of road expansion and the use of explosives raised environmental and safety concerns, including air pollution, noise, debris, and blast-induced ground vibrations affecting nearby residences. It observed that expansion of National Highways may fall within the Environmental Impact Assessment regime depending on the nature and extent of the project. The district administration was therefore required to verify whether environmental clearance was needed and to obtain an expert study on the depth, number and diameter of holes, explosive charge and permissible magnitude of blasting so that adjacent properties were protected.

Conclusion: Environmental clearance and expert assessment were to be examined and obtained where required before blasting could continue.

Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed and blasting operations were restrained until the necessary statutory permits, consent and compliance measures were secured, with protection of nearby residences and property treated as paramount.

Ratio Decidendi: Blasting undertaken for road widening can still amount to mining activity and must comply with the mining, explosives and environmental regulatory regimes before it is permitted to proceed.

---