Dated : 12.05.

2015
To,
1. Shri Pranav Mukherjee
Honble President of India
Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Honble Chief Justice of India
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
New Delhi
Sub: Petition praying to Compliance of Prof. Arya Committee Report (2004) and to

follow provisions of Building Bye-Laws, Indian Standards prescribed by the

Bureau of Indian Standards, National Building Code of India, 2005 to protect
buildings in Seismic Zone III, IV & V of earthquake prone areas of India which
have greater risk to buildings / structure due to soil conditions & the level of water
table favorable for liquefaction or settlement under earthquake vibrations and ;
to take strict action against those officials of different State Governments
who are responsible to non-compliance of committee report till date and
officials of Development Authorities & Municipal Corporations
who allowed to builders to construct multistoried buildings on raft foundation
without strengthening foundations of buildings in earthquake prone areas and ;
to take strict action against those builders who have constructed multistoried
buildings on raft foundation instead of without strengthening foundations of
high rise buildings in earthquake prone areas and;
request for compulsory registration of Geotechnical Engineers, Geotechnical
Investigation Agencies and Geotechnical Laboratories and;
request for compulsory submission of Geotechnical Investigation Report and
details of type of foundation alongwith Building Plan for sanctioning building
plan alongwith to check foundation work during construction by the officials of
Authorities and Municipal Corporations for more than 15 meter up to seven
stories and morethan seven stories in Seismic Zone III, IV & V of Earthquake
prone areas and other important issues as mentioned in petition
Respected sir,
With due respect it is submitted that India has experienced most disastrous
earthquakes in the recent past. The earthquakes can neither be predicted nor be prevented.
However, the severity of the damages can be minimized by proper land use planning and safe
construction practices and with the experience of current Nepal earthquake which have taken
heavy toll on human life and property and expected earth quake in Seismic Zone III, IV & V of
earthquake prone areas of India, I request you to please take necessary and immediate action to
save people residing in Seismic Zone III, IV and V of earthquake prone areas.
That the Applicant has taken a serious view of the fact that the Central Government,
State Governments and Union Territories have not taken necessary and immediate action till date
after the recent earthquake in Nepal and some parts of India to save people residing in Seismic
Zone III, IV & V of earthquake prone areas of India as the safety and welfare of the people is the
supreme law / the ultimate goal of all laws, and State action and above all the Constitution and
Safety, security and life would constitute a pyramid within the sanctity of Article 21.
In this connection, applicant is submitting this representation alongwith details of RTI
replies from various departments, codes, Prof. Arya Committee, Central Govt. and State Govts.

correspondence, various judgments of honble Supreme Court of India and High Courts of
different states with the necessity of adequate safety measures for the public at large for your
kind information and immediate action in the interest of nation and residents of India as a whole;
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1..
That the petitioner is a citizen of India and is proprietor of Jain Engg. Technocrats having
28 years experience in the field of ground strengthening work and petitioner is registered with
the Income Tax Department bearing PAN No. ADCPJ2111L and bearing Delhi Election Identity
Card No. DTZ0632554 and a social worker, RTI Activist and Founder President of Vishwa Jain
Sangathan (a non-profit, non-political, religious, social and cultural organization, registered with
Registrar of Societies, Delhi) which is actively engaged in social services and propagating Ahimsa
& Vegetarianism. Petitioner is an Honorary Co-ordinator (Delhi) of National Commission for
Minority Educational Institutions, Govt. of India, New Delhi vide Registration Sr. No. 278 valid up
to December, 2015.
2.
That petitioner has a genuine and bonafide interest in the issues which are raised in the
present representation in the interest of public at large.
3.
That on dated 18 December 2002 vide letter D.O. No. 1-18/2002-DM (I), Shri N.
Gopalaswami, honble Home Secretary of Govt. of India had recommended measures from post
disaster response to prevention, mitigation and preparedness to all Chief Secretaries of all States
/ UT Administrations. Some recommendations are as follows :(x) States in Seismic Zones IV and V may ensure that BIS building codes for these
zones have been adopted and are rigorously enforced by the Municipal Bodies. All
constructions in the Government sector in these areas must confirm to the BIS
Code.
(xii) Special efforts may be put in for education and awareness. This should include
awareness of basic design requirements for constructing private housing in Seismic
Zones IV and V as well as in the belt vulnerable to cyclones.
4.
That on dated 26 May 2003 vide letter D.O. No. 31/2/2003-NDM-II, Shri N. Gopalaswami,
honble Home Secretary of Govt. of India wrote to all Chief Secretaries (except Gujarat & Orissa)
alongwith reference to his prior letter dated 18.12.2002 by recalling the need to bring about a
shift in focus from post-disaster response to prevention, mitigation and preparedness. The Home
Secretary mentioned at point no. 3 that ;
The State Disaster Management Authority is the institutional arrangement envisaged for
bringing about this holistic ownership of responsibility. The Authority can either be at the
ministerial level with the Chief Minister as the Head and the Ministers for Water Resources,
Agriculture, Health, Roads, Rural Development, Public Works, Public Health Engg., Finance
Finance & Home as members or at the official level with the Chief Secretary as the Head and
the Secretaries of these departments as members. The Authority then can look at the
requirements for mitigation or preparedness in a holistic manner with all the relevant
Departments being jointly responsible.
5.
That on dated 29 July 2003 vide letter D.O. No. 31/16/2003-NDM.II, the honble Deputy
Prime Minister of India, Shri L. K. Advani wrote to all Chief Ministers of all States to initiate
similar steps as the Govt. of India has been giving attention to assess and improve capabilities
within the country for responding to disasters and to change the approach from a reactive to a
more proactive approach alongwith to address issues of mitigation / preparedness.
at point no. 2.1, the honble Dy Prime Minister mentioned ;
In particular, I recommend change of focus and responsibilities of your department of
Relief and Rehabilitation into one of prevention and mitigation. It may also be renamed

as Department of Disaster Management.

6.
That with the experience of past earthquakes in India (Uttarkashi in 1991, Latur in 1993 &
Bhuj in 2001) which had taken heavy toll on human life and property due to faulty building
constructions practices without following earthquake resistant features / building codes etc., in
year 2004, the National Core Group of Home Ministry of that time BJP Govt. had suggested that
Model Buildings Bye-Laws should be a speaking and self-contained document as far as possible
by including the main features of the BIS Codes and the non-structural aspects, which have
bearing on seismic safety. It was also of the view that the State Town & Country Planning Act as
well as Zoning regulations be reviewed so as to ensure that these are in conformity with
mitigation requirement.
7.
That with the recommendations of the National Core Group on Earthquake Mitigation set
up by the Home Ministry, the Ministry of Home Affairs had constituted a Committee of experts
under the Chairmanship of Prof. Arya (Seismic Advisor) vide order no. 31/35/2003-NDM-II dated
20 Jan 2004, to develop Model Building Bye-Laws and the review of City, Town & Country
Planning Act and the Zoning Regulations for Seismic Zone III, IV & V of earthquake prone
areas which have soil conditions and the level of water table favorable for liquefaction or
settlements under earthquake vibrations has greater risk to buildings / structures.
8. That on dated 01 July 2004, Prof. Arya Experts Committee had submitted its report in two
volumes to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs with detailed recommendations for
additional provisions to incorporate in the development control regulations for safety in natural
hazard prone areas and the building regulations / Model Building bye-laws for structural safety
and the review of City, Town & Country Planning Act and the Zoning Regulations for Seismic Zone
III, IV & V.
The Expert Committee had also prepared a detailed Structural Design Basis Report Format
for ensuring the compliance of essential elements of various BIS Codes by the concerned
professionals. The qualifications, duties, responsibilities and supervisory mechanism are detailed
out in the report with relevant forms.

The Expert Committee also felt that there is an urgent need to have a law for
professionals in the form of Architect Act for Engineers and professionals so that their
qualifications, responsibilities, duties could be channelized in a better, coordinated and
unified manner.
9.
That National Disaster Management Division had circulated Prof. Arya Committee report
vide D.O. letter No. 31-1/2004-NDM-III dated 13.09.2004 to the all Chief Secretaries of all
states / UTs of India to setup a committee under the chairmanship of Dev. Commissioner /
Addl. Chief Secretary with Secretary - Disaster Management, Secretary Urban Dev. & Chief Town
Planning Officer and Engineer-in-Chief as members to go through the recommendations made in
the report and adapt them to requirement of the state within six months.
10.
That Government of India has passed Disaster Management Act on 23rd December, 2005
in the Parliament. After this act, disaster is no more confined to any particular department rather
it is confined to all the departments. This Act enables the State Government to develop
management authority at the state level and make it more effective and specific.
11.
That the Joint Secretary (UD), Ministry of Urban Development (Govt. of India) had issued
an order dated 09.04.2012 vide D.O. No. K-14011/130/2006-UD-II (Vol-VI) to the all principal
secretaries (UD) of all States / UTs of India by mentioning as follows that :1) the Report of the Prof. Arya committee submitted to MHA in July, 2004 has been
circulated to State Governments.
2) the provisions to be incorporated in the State Town & Country Planning Acts

3) Indicate hazard proneness of the area in existing land use maps;

Indicate broadly the manner in which the Planning Authority proposes the land in such;
area should be used keeping in view the natural hazard proneness of the area;
4) For areas not covered under Development Plans, general guidelines on natural disaster
mitigation shall be issued to various ULBs to enable them to take these into consideration
while siting various projects and deciding on construction of buildings.
Priority-I may include defence installation, industries, utilities and lifeline structures like
hospitals, airports, railway station;
Priority-II may include institutional buildings, Government offices and residential areas;
5) It is requested that action may kindly be taken at your end to incorporate the
recommendations of the Prof. Arya Committee Report in ;

1. Enabling legislation 2. Zoning Regulations and 3. Building Bye Laws

12.
That the petitioner by the present representation seek protection of the fundamental
constitutional rights under section 21 of chapter III of the Constitution of India, guaranteed for
the public at large who are residents of Seismic Zone III, IV & V of earthquake prone areas of
India. The representation raises the following substantial question of law of Public importance
and particularly of paramount importance to the residents of Seismic Zone III, IV & V of
earthquake prone areas of India ;
QUESTIONS OF LAW :1. Whether Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations of all States and UTs
are following provisions of Building Bye-Laws, Indian Standards prescribed by
the Bureau of Indian Standards, National Building Code of India, 2005, to permit
/ allow to construct high rise buildings of more than 15 meter height up to seven
stories and more than seven stories to private builders in Seismic Zone III, IV & V
of Earthquake prone areas which have soil conditions and the level of water
table favorable for liquefaction or settlements under earthquake vibrations has
greater risk to buildings / structures.
2. Whether measures from post disaster response to prevention, mitigation and
preparedness have been adopted by the all State Governments and Union
Territories Administrations of India as suggested by Shri N. Gopalaswami,
honble Home Secretary of Govt. of India vide letter D.O. No. 1-18/2002-DM (I)
dated 18 December 2002 and D.O. No. 31/2/2003-NDM-II dated 26 May 2003 to
Chief Secretaries of all States.

3. Whether the registration of Geotechnical Consultancy Agency with required

technical qualification is compulsory to conduct Geotechnical Investigation work
as specified by the Indian Standards for important projects of Development
Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Central & State Government Departments,
Govt. of India enterprises and Engineering Consultants and high rise residential
buildings.
4. Whether the registration of Geotechnical Testing Laboratory is compulsory to
conduct various laboratory tests as specified by the Indian Standards on soil and
water to check its properties for finalization of type of required foundation of
structures / buildings.

5. Whether conducting of detailed field sub-soil / Geotechnical Investigation and

laboratory tests on soil and water as per Indian Standards to determine subsoil
strata and the safe bearing capacity of soil & water for design of building
foundations in Seismic Zone III, IV & V of Earthquake prone areas which have soil
conditions and the level of water table favorable for liquefaction or settlements
under earthquake vibrations has greater risk to buildings / structures is
necessary requirement prior to construct high rise buildings in above noted
zones.
6. Whether In natural hazard / earthquake prone areas identified under the land
use zoning regulations, structures buildings and installations which cannot be
avoided, protective measures for such construction/ development should be
properly safeguarded and Buildings and structures could be founded on deep
bearing piles going to non-liquefiable dense layers If the site is found to be liable
to liquefaction by the Competent Authority under the earthquake intensity of
the area.
7. Whether submission of Geotechnical Investigation report alongwith type of
foundation to be constructed for seven meter or more than seven meter high
rise buildings in seismic zone III, IV & V are necessary to submit to the competent
authorities to get building plan sanction
8. Whether Competent Authority should check and approve type of foundation
constructed as per sanctioned building plan before to start building construction
in seismic zone III, IV & V.
9. Whether as per D.O. letter No. 31-1/2004-NDM-III dated 13.09.2004 of the
National Disaster Management Division of Ministry of Home Affairs , all States
and Union Territories have constituted a committee under the chairmanship of
Dev. Commissioner / Addl. Chief Secretary with Secretary - Disaster
Management, Secretary Urban Development, Chief Town Planning Officer and
Engineer-in-Chief as members to go through the recommendations made by the
Prof. Arya Committee Report dated 1st July 2004 to develop Model Building ByeLaws and the review of City, Town & Country Planning Act and the Zoning
Regulations for Seismic Zone III, IV & V of earthquake prone areas and adapt
them to requirement of the state within six months of the D.O. letter date or till
date.
10. Whether all States / Union Territories have incorporated provisions as suggested
by the Prof. Arya Committee Report in Zoning Regulations and building Bye-Laws
for hazard prone areas as ordered by the Joint Secretary (UD), Ministry of Urban
Development vide D.O. No. K-14011/130/2006-UD-II (Vol-VI) dated 09.04.2012
to the all principal secretaries (UD) of all States / UTs till date.
11. Whether any action is applicable against those Govt. Officials of Development
Authorities and Municipal Corporations who are responsible to permit / allow to
construct high rise buildings to private builders without checking building plans
as par Building Bye-Laws, Indian Standards prescribed by the Bureau of Indian
Standards and National Building Code of India, 2005, specially made for Seismic
Zone III, IV & V of Earthquake prone areas which have soil conditions and the

level of water table favorable for liquefaction or settlements under earthquake

vibrations.

12. Whether any action is applicable against those persons who are working as
Geotechnical Consultants as proprietor / partnership firm / Pvt. Ltd. company
without having any degree in Geotechnical Engineering even in Civil Engineering
and Soil testing laboratory and issuing field reports at minimum charges to
builders of builders choice to construct high rise buildings on raft foundations to
save time and money instead of pile foundations taken to depths well into the
layer which is not likely to liquefy in Seismic Zone III, IV & V of Earthquake prone
areas on the account of life of innocent buyers of flats in these building

13. Whether after the recent earth quake in Nepal and some parts of India, the
Govt. of India, State Governments and Union Territories have issued directions
to the Development Authorities and Municipal Corporations to check the
stability of foundations and construction of those high rise buildings of more
then 15 meter in height and up to seven stories and more than seven stories
which are already constructed or construction work in progress and situated in
Seismic Zone III, IV & V of Earthquake prone areas in the interest of life of
public at large.
14.. Whether the safety and welfare of the people is the supreme law / the
ultimate goal of all laws, and State action and above all the Constitution and
Safety, security and life would constitute a pyramid within the sanctity of Article
21 and no jettisoning is permissible.
15. Whether appointment of a Geotechnical Engineer is a necessary requirement in
every Development Authority and Municipal Corporation to check the
important Geotechnical & Foundation activities before starting the construction
of high rise buildings in seismic zones III, IV & V.
16. Whether there is an urgent requirement to appoint an expert committee of
experienced and qualified Geotechnical, Structural, Civil Engineers and other
public representatives to check the construction activities in seismic zones III, IV
& V instead of Govt. officials and politicians who do not have any technical
experience in construction field and are already busy in other routine works.
17. Whether Govt. of India and State Governments publish any advertisement /
material to educate buyers of costly flats in high rise buildings relating to
building by-laws, National Building Codes and Indian Standards for safe
foundation and structure etc. for seismic zones of Earthquake prone areas.
18. Whether as per recommendation no. xiv of Shri N. Gopalaswami, honble Home
Secretary, Govt. of India vide letter D.O. No. 1-18/2002-DM (I) to all Chief
Secretaries of States and UTs for inclusion of basic disaster related material in
the text books for classes 8th, 9th & 10th the basic dos and donts / precaution
to be taken have been included by the CBSE and Secondary Boards of Education
of States.
13.
That as per NATIONAL POLICY ON DISASTER MANAGEMENT 2009, issued by the
National Disaster Management Authority of Ministry of Home Affairs and approved by the
Union Cabinet on 22nd October, 2009 as ;

Disaster Prevention and Mitigation :5.1.1 Unlike man-made disasters, natural hazards like floods, earthquakes, and cyclones
cannot be avoided. However, with mitigation measures along with proper planning of
developmental work in the risk prone area, these hazards can be prevented from turning into
disasters. A multi-pronged approach needs to be adopted to undertake mitigation measures
and one of them measure is ;
Building mitigation measures into all development projects.
Revision of Municipal Regulations:
6.2.1 In view of the construction boom and rapid urbanisation, municipal regulations
such as development control regulations, building bye-laws and structural safety features
need to be revisited. These regulations will be reviewed periodically to identify safety gaps
from seismic, flood, landslide and other disasters and suitable modifications will be made to
align them to the revised building codes of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).
The utilization of unsuitable areas for construction, without necessary safeguards
further enhances vulnerability and needs to be guarded against through appropriate
compliance mechanisms.
Safe Construction Practices :
6.4.1 Hazards like earthquakes and cyclones do not kill people but inadequately
designed and badly constructed buildings do. Ensuring safe construction of new buildings
and retrofitting of selected lifeline buildings, as given in the Earthquake Guidelines, is a
critical step to be taken towards earthquake mitigation.
Building codes will be updated every five years as a mandatory requirement and also
put in the public domain. Observance of the National Building Code should be made
mandatory in all the State/ Municipal building bye-laws.
Enforcement :
6.6.1 After having put the techno-legal and compliance system in place, the States/UTs
will also ensure their enforcement by establishing an effective mechanism, under the
provisions of the Act.
Licensing and Certification :
10.9.1 Testing the skills of professionals becomes important to ensure disaster resilient
construction in the built environment. The BIS will be requested to develop uniform codes and
specifications with the help of professional bodies.
The State Governments will develop a scheme to ensure that only adequately
qualified professionals practice within its territory. The State Governments will also enforce
their own registration benchmarks to uphold desirable standards commensurate with their
risk profile.
14.
That Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Director Disaster Management Division of Ministry of Home
Affairs provided following information under RTI reply dated 25.11.2014 vide letter No. 3922/2014-DM-III (RTI) / 1525-1526 that :Ans. 1) the copy of Prof. Arya Committee report alongwith D.O. letters have been given to
all States / UTs.
Ans. 4) The states namely Rajasthan, Mizoram, Jharkhand, Manipur, J & K, Punjab, Odisha,
Meghalaya & NCT of Delhi have constituted the committees.

Ans. 5) No record is available for the states / UTs (other than mentioned at S. No. 4)

who have not constituted the committee and action thereon.

In this connection, I want to inform you that National Disaster Management Division had
instructed to the all Chief Secretaries of all states / UTs of India vide D.O. letter No. 31-1/2004NDM-III dated 13.09.2004 to setup a committee to go through the recommendations made in the
report and adapt them to requirement of the state within six months but only nine states have
constituted committee till date and no action against balance states has been taken by the
National Disaster Management Devision till date.
15. That Prof Arya Committee had proposed following some important proposals for all areas
under Seismic Zone III. IV & V for safety in natural hazard prone areas ;
1) Chapter 3.8.1 :- Identification of Natural Hazaard Prone Areas (Page No. 41) ;
a. All areas under Seismic Zone III, IV and V as specified in IS 1893 will be considered
prone to earthquake hazards.
b. In these zones the areas which have soil conditions and the level of water table
favourable for liquefaction or settlements under earthquake vibrations will have
greater risk to buildings and structures which will be of special consideration under
Land Use Zoning.
d. Whereas, earthquake hazard prone areas defined in a above are identified on the
map given in IS 1893 to small scale and more easily identified in the larger scale state
wise maps given in the Vulnerability Atlas of India, the special risky areas as defined in
b & c above, have to be determined specifically for the planning area under
consideration through special studies to be carried out by Geologists and GeoTechnical Engineers .
2) Chapter 4: ADDITIONAL PROVISONS IN DEVELOPMEN CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR
SAFETY IN NATURAL HAZARD PRONE AREAS :
(ix) Quality Audit (Page No. 50): Third party quality audit is a requirement for an
independent assessment of the quality and seismic or
cyclone resistant features of all the high-rise buildings in earthquake zone IV and V
and coastal areas of the country. The quality audit report shall consist of
conformance or non-conformance of structures with the technical specifications
for earthquake and cyclone resistance and to suggest remedies/ rectification if any.
3) REVIEW OF STRUCTUREAL DESIGN (page no. 57) :(i).. The Competent Authority shall create a Structural Design Review Panel (SDRP)
consisting of senior Structural Engineer on Record SERs and Structural Design
Agency on Record SDARs whose task will be to review and certify the design
prepared by SER or SDAR whenever referred by the Competent Authority.
(iii).. Table-1 gives requirements of SDRP for different Seismic Zones namely III, IV and
V and for structures of different complexities.
(iv).. In Seismic Zone II, buildings & structures greater then 40m in height will require
proof checking by SDRP as per details at sl. no. 03 of Table-1

TABLE 1
PROOF CHECKING REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN

S.No. Type of Structure

Submission from SER or SDAR

to be Proof checked

1. Load bearing buildings

up to 3 Stories

Structural Design Basis Report*

Not to be checked

2.. Buildings up to seven

stories

SDBR*
Preliminary Design

To be Checked
To be Checked

3.. Buildings Greater than

Seven Stories

SDBR*
Preliminary Design
Detailed Structural Design and
Structural Drawings

To be Checked
To be Checked
To be Checked

4) B1.8:- REGISTERED GEO-TECHNICAL AGENCY (RGA) ;For foundation work, where required as per Regulation services of a Geo-technical
Agency on Record (at Page No. 72) ;
(A) The requirements for registration shall be:
i)... Owner of a proprietary firm shall be M.E. (or equivalent) in Geo-technical
Engineering with minimum 10 years of Experience
ii)... Fifty per cent partners of a partnership firm shall have educational
Qualifications as in (i) but a minimum 5 years experience.
(iii)... A designated officer of a limited company shall have qualifications as
(iv)... The experience as stated above shall be under one or more Geo-technical
Agency on Record. Such agencies established within or outside the area of
jurisdiction of the competent authority shall be of minimum ten years of
standing.
(v)... The agency has a Registered Laboratory. Any individual possessing qualifications
as in (i) and hiring services of either GAR or Registered Testing Laboratory shall
also be eligible for registration.
(B) The registration shall be renewed every three years.
(C) The registration may be cancelled for unprofessional conduct permanently or for a
specified period.
5) B3.1 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ON RECORD (SER) :
Duties and Responsibilities (at page no. 74) ;
A (iii) A structural design report giving salient features of the structure, loads and soil
characteristics and capacity, etc. shall be submitted in the prescribed format
In the case of high-rise buildings and Special Structures, SER shall ;
B (ii) Get required Soil (Geo-technical) Investigation done from an approved
laboratory and submit the report concerning the same in prescribed
format to the Competent Authority.
6) B 3.6 GEO-TECHNICAL AGENCY ON RECORD (GAR):All buildings described in Table-1 shall have, for foundation work, services of a Geo-

technical Agency on Record. Duties and Responsibilities (at page No. 78) :
a).. To carry out soil investigation at proposed locations as per specifications of
Structural Engineer on Record (SER) of Structural Design Agency on Record
(b) To recommend various type foundation for proposed structure and loading with
supporting calculations.
(c) To enable SER or SDAR to take site decision in case strata different than soil
investigation report is met with.
16.
That Initiatives taken by the National Disaster Management Division of Ministry of
Home Affairs for disaster risk reduction by issuing National Programme for Capacity Building of
Architects for Earthquake Risk Management (NPCBAERM). Some major Earthquake Mitigation
Measures for building by-laws by MHA as ;
3.1 Considering the earthquake vulnerability of the country, MHA have advised the
States and UTs to ensure that the following measures are put in place ;
(a) Review and, if necessary, amend building byelaws to incorporate the BIS seismic
codes for construction in the concerned zone. Similarly, it should be ensured that
the plans/designs of the Government construction departments are in accordance
with the BIS codes for these zones.
(b) In the municipal areas, make it mandatory for the builders/buyers to submit building
plans prepared by an architect and certified by a structural engineer to get building
construction permission and make the architect and structural engineers who have
prepared the building plan and structural design accountable for adherence to the
BIS codes/building bye-laws.
17.
That as per IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002, Indian Standard CRITERIA FOR EARTHQUAKE
RESISTANT DESIGN OF STRUCTURES ; GENERAL PROVISIONS AND BUILDINGS (5th Revision) :4. TERMINOLOGY FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING OF BUILDINGS ;
4.2 Base:- It is the level at which inertia forces generated in the structure are
transferred to the foundation, which then transfers these forces to the
ground.
6. GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN CRITERIA, 6.1 General Principles ;
6.1.1 Ground Motion :- The random earthquake ground motions, which cause the
structure to vibrate, can be resolved in any three mutually
perpendicular directions. The predominant direction of ground vibration is usually horizontal.
Earthquake - generated vertical inertia forces are to be considered in design unless
checked and proven by specimen calculations to be not significant. Vertical acceleration should be
considered in structures with large spans, those in which stability is a criterion for design, or for
overall stability analysis of structures. Reduction in gravity force due to vertical component of
ground motions can be particularly detrimental in cases of prestressed horizontal members and
of cantilevered members. Hence, special attention should be paid to the effect of vertical
component of the ground motion on prestressed or cantilevered beams, girders and slabs.
6.1.2 :- The response of a structure to ground vibrations is a fiction of the nature of
foundation soil; materials, form, size and mode of construction of structures; and the duration
and characteristics of ground motion. This standard specifies design forces for structures standing
on rocks or soils which do not settle, liquefy or slide due to loss of strength during ground
vibrations.

6.3.2 Design Horizontal Earthquake Load 6.3.2.1:- When the lateral load resisting
elements are oriented along orthogonal horizontal direction, the structure shall be designed for
the effects due to till design earthquake load in one horizontal direction at time.
At Page No. 31 :- That Alluvium Soil strata for Delhi and nearby areas is shown in
MAP of India, showing Principal Lithological Groups in IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 at Annex-C.
18.

NATURAL HAZARD / EARTHQUAKE PRONE AREAS:- Areas likely to have moderate to high
intensity of earthquake, or cyclonic
storm, or significant flood flow or inundation, or land slides/mud flows/avalanches, or
one or more of these hazards. Moderate to very high damage risk zones of earthquakes
are as shown in Seismic Zones III, IV and V specified in IS: 1893
As per IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002, Zone Factors for some following important Towns / City :

Zone III

ZONE IV

Agra
Panjim
Ahmedabad
Patiala
Asansol
Pune
Bareilly
Rajkot
Belgaum
Salem
Bhatinda
Solapur
Bhubaneswar
Surat
Bijapur
Tarapur
Bikaner
Thane
Bokaro
Thiruvanathapuram
Burdwan
Tiruvennamalai
Calicut
Vadodara
Chennai
Varanasi
Coimbatore
Vellore
Cuddalore
Vijaywada
Cuttack
Dharwad
Dharampuri
Durgapur, Goa
Gaya, Jabalpur
Kakrapara, Kalapakkam
Kanchipura, Kanpur, Karwar
Kolkata, Lucknow, Mangalore
Mumbai, Nasik, Nellore
Osmanabad

Almora
Ambala
Amritsar
Bahraich
Barauni
Bulandshahr
Chandigarh
Darjeeling
Dehradun

Delhi

ZONE V_____
Bhuj
Darbhanga
Guwahati
Imphal
Jorhat
Kohima
Mandi
Sadiya
Srinagar
Tezpur

Gangtok
Gorakhpur
Ludhiana
Monghyr
Moradabad
Nainital
Patna
Pilibhit
Roorkee
Shimla

That Magnitude shown for following important city in Map of India and Surrounding Showing
Epicenters in IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002 at Annex-A at page no. 29 :MAGNITUDE

6.5 to < 7
Dehradun

7 to < 7.5

Delhi & NCR

Shimla
Srinagar

7.5 to < 8______________

Bhuj
Guwahati
Itnanagar
Imphal, Kohima, Shilong

19.
Liquefaction : Liquefaction is a state in saturated cohesionless soil wherein the effective
shear strength is reduced to negligible value for all engineering purpose due to pore pressure
caused by vibrations during an earthquake when they approach the total confining pressure. In
this condition the soil tends to behave like a fluid mass.
20.

EARTHQUAKES DO NOT KILL ; UNSAFE BUILDINGS DO :-

An earthquake in Tokyo or Los Angeles may result in damage of only a few buildings
because strict construction regulations are adopted but the same earthquake may be
catastrophic in Mumbai or Delhi, in terms of buildings damaged and lives lost, because the
building design and construction practice are not adequately regulated.
That experience in past earthquakes has demonstrated that Earthquakes are one of the
natures greatest hazards on our planet which have taken heavy toll on human life and property
since ancient times. The sudden and unexpected nature of the earthquake event makes it even
worse on psychological level and shakes the moral of the people. Man looks upon the mother
earth for safety and stability under his feet and when it itself trembles, the shock he receives is
indeed unnerving.
The vast extent of damage and the consequent loss of life associated with these events
reflect the poor construction practice in India. Before the 2001 Bhuj earthquake, constructions
with poor seismic resistance were assumed to be a feature of non-urban areas, with urban
structures considered safer due to the use of engineering knowledge and modern construction
materials. However, this earthquake shattered the myth of urban seismic safety through
widespread damage to modern buildings.
The low awareness among the general public towards structural safety and the inability
of regulatory bodies and technical professionals in maintaining quality standards in
constructions has created an urgent need to educate the leaders, public, city planners,
architects and the engineering professional about the consequences of earthquakes.
21.
That in the country with 1,040 active faults covering 57% of land mass making it more
prone to earthquakes, there is always a possibility that a severe earthquake in highly seismic
zones might affect the performance of any structure.
Studies of earthquake damage show that some types of construction tend to be more
vulnerable than others. The form of construction of the main vertical load-bearing elements is
one of the main determinants of vulnerability of a building. This is mainly due to faulty
construction practices which do not follow earthquake resistant features complying with Code
practices. This has created an alarming situation, where large number of earthquake unsafe
building stock is added each year to the already huge number of existing unsafe buildings.

The Extent of damage to a building during an earthquake, depends not only on

the magnitude of the earthquake but also on the soil, building configuration, quality of
design and construction. Therefore seismic evaluation of structures especially in severe
most zones is necessary.
22.
That during the 2001 Bhuj earthquake, RC buildings collapsed due to an earthquake of
just 6 on the Richter scale, when a well-designed RC building should be able to withstand an
earthquake of up to 7.5 on the Richter scale. The damage caused to these buildings is
unreasonably high compared to any other country for similar level of ground-shaking. Thus, the
housing risk in the country should be minimized to reduce losses to life and property in future
earthquakes.
Regulations require urban local bodies to check conformity of high rise buildings /
structures with the approved drawings alongwith strong foundation while granting completion
and occupancy certificates, especially in seismic zones III, IV and V. The National Building Code
2005 states that non-compliance with the sanctioned drawings should invite suspension of
further construction till the required changes are put in place, and demolition of illegal portions.

Urban local bodies claim that inspections usually cannot be carried out because they are severely
short of humanpower.
23.
That the Director, Disaster Management Division of Ministry of Home Affairs informed
under RTI reply dated 25.11.2014 vide letter no. 1525-26 that the NCT of Delhi has constituted

committee to incorporate amendments proposed in Prof. Arya Committee report

alongwith a copy of letter dated 25.10.2006 vide No. ADM/DRM/TLR/04/4067of Shri S. K. Jha,
Addl. District Magistrate (HQ), Govt. of NCT of Delhi and in this letter, the ADM (HQ) informed to
the Director NDM-III, Ministry of Home Affairs that:
adequate steps have been undertaken by this office to modify the building bylaws /
regulations of Delhi, Master Plan of Delhi-2021 & National Capital Regional Plan on the basis of
the guidelines mentioned in copy of the report on Model amendment for Town and Country
Planning Acts, Land-use zoning regulations, Developments control guidelines, Building Bye-laws
which was developed by the National Expert Group.
the recommendation report which was prepared under the core guidance of the expert
committee under the direction of Prof. Arya on 14.02.2006 at NIDM was sent to the LG, CM, CS,
PS-Home, PS-UD, Commissioner MCD, VC DDA, and Chief (Building Materials)-BMTPC for
suitable action at their end. Further MCD has directed the responsible agencies for

considering the suggestions mentioned in the recommendation report in the newly

developed building bye-laws.
24.
That East Delhi Municipal Corporation informed under RTI reply dated 13.06.2014 vide
letter No. PIO/EE (B) HQ / EDMC/2014-15/ D-31 that ;
The Building (HQ) is relying upon the structure stability on the certificate of structural
engineer engaged by the applicant at the time sanction of building plan.
25.
That East Delhi Municipal Corporation informed under RTI reply dated 10.07.2014 vide
letter no. D/30/SE/B/HQ/EDMC towards RTI Application ID No. 20/PIO/EE (B) HQ/EDMC dated
11.06.2014 that ;
as per provisions of notification dated 21.03.2001 of Ministry of Urban Development,
Govt. of India, a certificate relating to structural safety is given by the applicant under the
signature of owner, architect and structural designer. No structural drawings or soil

investigation report or details of foundation are insisted at the time of sanction of

building plan.
26.
That in WP No. 14807 of 1997 and Batch (Emerald Apartments Owners' Association v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh), Hon'ble Sri Justice B.S.A. Swamy has considered this aspect of
the matter.
The Experts Committee appointed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 567, dated
12.7.1999 also considered this aspect of the matter and made recommendations. These need to
be strictly adhered to at pre-application (for building permission) as well as post-permission
stage. This is a good beginning and we can leave it at that with a hope that the letter and spirit of
these guidelines would inform decisions of all authorities.
27.
That East Delhi Municipal Corporation provided a copy of Gazette Notification No. 177
with S.O. 248 (E) dated 21.03.2001, issued by the Ministry of Urban development (Delhi
Division) for following modification /addition in the Building Bye-laws, 1983 under RTI reply dated
10.07.2014 vide letter no. D/30/SE/B/HQ/EDMC :Modifications :(i)

Clause 18 of Part III of the Building Bye-laws will be modified as

*18 the structural design of foundation shall be carried out in accordance with Part
VI Structural Design, Section - I Loads, Section - 2 Foundation of National Building
Code of India, taking into consideration all relevant Indian standards prescribed by
Bureau of Indian Standards including the latest provisions of National Building Code &
Indian Standards given in annexure-A for earthquake protection of building.
(ii)

An additional sub-clause is included under clause 6.2.9 of building Bye-Laws as

follows :(i) The certificate as indicated as Annexure B and C to be signed by the owner, the
architect and the structural engineer.

Annexure A : List of Indian Standards / Guidelines for Hazard safety for earthquake
protection
Annexure B (under clause 6.2.9) :Certificate : The following certificate is to be submitted alongwith the building drawing
while submitting the plans for obtaining building permission ;
1. Certified that the building plans submitted for approval satisfy the safety
requirements as stipulated under clause 18 of Building Bye-Laws, 1983 and the
information given therein is factually correct to the best of our knowledge and
understanding.
2. It is also certified that the structural design including safety from natural

hazards based on soil conditions has been duly incorporated in the design
of the building and these provisions shall be adhered to during the
construction.
28.
That as per RTI reply dated 25.11.2014, the Disaster Management Division of Ministry of
Home Affairs (mentioned at point no. 12 of this representation) informed that NCT of Delhi has
constituted committee to incorporate amendments proposed in Prof. Arya Committee report
alongwith a copy of letter dated 25.10.2006 of Addl. District Magistrate (HQ), Govt. of NCT of
Delhi and in this letter, the ADM (HQ) informed to the Ministry of Home Affairs that:
adequate steps have been undertaken by this office to modify the building bylaws /
regulations of Delhi, Master Plan of Delhi-2021 & National Capital Regional Plan on the
basis of the guidelines mentioned in copy of the report..
the recommendation report which was prepared under the core guidance of the expert
committee under the direction of Prof. Arya on 14.02.2006 at NIDM was sent to the LG,
CM, CS, PS-Home, PS-UD, Commissioner MCD, VC DDA, and Chief (Building
Materials) - BMTPC for suitable action at their end. Further

MCD has directed the responsible agencies for considering the suggestions
mentioned in the recommendation report in the newly developed building
bye-laws.
In this connection, I want to bring in your kind notice that on dated 25.10.2006, the ADM
(HQ), Govt. of Delhi had informed to the Ministry of Home Affairs that steps has been taken to

modify building laws in Delhi and MCD has been directed for considering the recommendations
but East Delhi Municipal Corporation is sanctioning building plans without checking
structural drawings or soil investigation report or details of foundation at the time of
sanction of building as information provided by the EDMC under RTI reply as mentioned at
point no. 13 & 14 of this representation.
29.
That in Andhra High Court Vs. Advocate General vs State Of A.P., Equivalent citations:
2004 (1) ALD 708, 2004 (2) ALT 460, the honble Court observed ;
Law of Building Permissions:
15. Any Municipal Administration Law or law of local authority is essentially intended to
facilitate practice of principles of democracy to the gross-roots and involvement of the people in
healthy and planned development of urban locality, be it a town or city. There are adequate
provisions in the Municipalities Act and HMC Act to deal with this. Besides, the Rules and ByeLaws have been framed under these Acts which deal with the procedure for obtaining building
permission, the inspection to be made by the authorities, method and manner of constructing
and prerequisites like soil testing, structural testing before granting permission.
These Bye-Laws have been held by many Courts to be of mandatory nature.
Everybody admits that if these Bye-Laws are strictly adhered to, the damage to social and
economic interest of the people can be avoided. The experts are unanimous that the authorities
follow Building Rules and Bye-Laws more in breach notwithstanding the fact that these Bye-Laws
are inflexible Regulations and have to be strictly adhered to.
30.
That as per Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Div.) Gazette Notification No. 177 with
S.O. 248 (E) dated 21.03.2001 for modification /addition in the Clause 18 (i) of Part III of Building
Bye-laws, 1983, the Municipal Corporations / Development Authority of Delhi is responsible to
check the buildings constructions activities as per all relevant Indian standards prescribed by
Bureau of Indian Standards including the latest provisions of National Building Code & Indian
Standards given in annexure-A of the Gazette for earthquake protection of building etc. as NCT of
Delhi falls under Seismic Zone IV of earthquake prone area but East Delhi Municipal Corporation
is following only newly amended Clause 18 (ii) of Building Bye-Laws by taking only a structure
stability certificate of structural engineer engaged by the applicant at the time sanction of
building plan.
31. That as per NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF INDIA, 2005 ;
2.2 Building Any structure for whatsoever purpose and of whatsoever materials
constructed and every part thereof whether used as human habitation or not and
includes foundation.
A-6.2 Section 2: Soils and Foundations :- It covers structural design (principles) of all
building foundations, such as, raft, pile and other foundation systems to ensure safety and
serviceability without exceeding the permissible stresses of the materials of foundations
and the bearing capacity of the supporting soil.
5.0 SEISMIC LOAD :- This clause deals with assessment of seismic loads on various
structures and earthquake resistant design of buildings.
5.1 Terminology for Earthquake Engineering :5.1.1 :- For the purpose of this standard, the following definitions shall apply which are
applicable generally to all structures:
5.3 General Principles and Design Criteria ;

5.3.1.1 Ground motion :- The characteristics (intensity, duration, etc) of seismic ground
vibrations expected at any location depends upon the magnitude of earthquake, its
depth of focus, distance from the epicentre, characteristics of the path through which the
seismic waves travel, and the soil strata on which the structure stands. The random
earthquake ground motions, which cause the structure to vibrate, can be resolved in any
three mutually perpendicular directions. The predominant direction of ground vibration
is usually horizontal.
Earthquake-generated vertical inertia forces are to be considered in design unless
checked and proven by specimen calculations to be not significant. Vertical acceleration
should be considered in structures with large spans, those in which stability is a criterion
for design, or for overall stability analysis of structures.
5.3.1.2 :- The response of a structure to ground vibrations is a function of the nature of
foundation soil, materials, form, size and mode of construction of structures; and the
duration and characteristics of ground motion.
32.

That as per the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983 :-

2.10 Building :- Any structure for whatsoever purpose and whatsoever material
constructed and every part thereof whether used as human habitation or not and includes
foundation,...
2.37 F'ooting :- A foundation unit constructed in brick work, masonry or concrete under
the base of a wall or column for the purpose of distributing the load over a large area.
2.38 Foundation- That part of the structure which is in direct contact with and
transmitting loads to the ground.
33.
That in the matter of SHANTHA v. COMMISSIONER OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY
OF BANGALORE: the honble Supreme court Bench upheld the locus standi of the neighbors to
challenge the building license granted contrary to the Zonal regulations. The Court held at page
1043;
"The Corporation authorities who are the trustees of the public interest must strictly
observe the norms and conditions of the Development Plan. The authorities owe a duty to Rate
Payers to protect the interest of the public, while administering the Planning law. They cannot
afford to ignore the social responsibilities underlining the Planning law. They shall not favour an
individual at the cost of the general public, and to the detriment of their interest. They shall
never issue licence to construct building contrary to the Zoning Regulations.
If they give licence to construct a building contrary to the permitted land use or
contrary to the prevailing zoning regulations, they should be held responsible for their lapses.
Indeed, they are accountable to the public when they act against the interest of the public. In
such cases, when the Rate Payers approaches the Court complaining about the misuse or abuse
of powers, by public authorities, the court cannot drive them away on technical grounds. It
would be the duty of the courts to enforce the rule of law, enacted for the benefit of the public.
It would be the duty of the courts to protect the rate payers' interest preserved under
the Planning law."
34.

DELHI AND ITS SURROUNDING REGION AND SEISMIC BACKGROUND :

Delhi and its surrounding region have experienced earthquakes in the past and is
vulnerable for earthquake related damages in the future.

The first scientifically recorded earthquake from this region was on 15 July 1720 with
intensity IX. Other major earthquakes have been reported subsequently in the years 1803 (IX),
1825(V), 1830 (V), 1831 (VII) and 1842 (VI). In the recent past, earthquakes of magnitude up to
6.2 have been reported in Delhi and nearby regions.
There are nearby diffuse seismic sources known for their sporadic activity. In addition, the
threat perception is highlighted by the proximity of the active Himalayan plate boundary region.
Thus, seismic hazard at Delhi is controlled broadly by two different tectonic regimes namely,
the Himalayan region (HR) and the Delhi region (DR).
That twenty potential faults, in a region of 300 km radius around Delhi, are identified by
mapping the peak ground acceleration (PGA) values for Delhi city, using probabilistic seismic
hazard analysis (PSHA) methods. The city has considerable variation in the soil layering and bed
rock profile, which may cause large variation of surface level ground motion.
The terrain of Delhi is flat in general except for the NNE-SSW trending ridge. This is one of
the prominent features of Delhi. This is considered as an extension of the Aravalli hill, which is
buried under the Yamuna alluvium in the northern parts of Delhi. River Yamuna, which is another
prominent feature of Delhi, enters the city from north and flows southward with an eastern bend
near Okhla. This path forms a tri-junction with the Lahore-Delhi ridge, and the Delhi-Haridwar
Ridge. This region is seismically active and shows sporadic activity aligned in NNE-SSW direction,
nearly perpendicular to the Himalayan arc. Proximity of Himalayan region makes Delhi
susceptible to the earthquakes from Himalayan seismic sources also.
The nearest point from the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) to Delhi is around 160 km. A large
number of fractures and faults are noticed in the Himalayas. This zone is well known for its severe
seismic activity. In comparison with this, study suggests that the Sonepat-Delhi-Sohna
dislocation is responsible for frequent earthquakes in and around Delhi city.
This has been further improved here to map all known faults in a radius of 300 km., around
Delhi city. Twenty faults recognizable as affecting Delhi are shown. Among these, eighteen faults
have been marked following the Seismo-tectonic Atlas of India. A short fault within Delhi city has
been identified based on a report of Geological Survey of India.
{Reference: SEISMIC HAZARD MAPPING OF DELHI CITY (Paper No. 180) in 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering at Vancouver, B.C., Canada on August 1-6,
2004, presented by Mr R. N. Iyengar and Mr S. Ghosh}
35.
That Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India, had constituted a multidisciplinary Working Group of experts from India Meteorological Department, Geological Survey
of India, Central Ground Water Board, Central Road Research Institute, Wadia Institute of
Himalayan Geology, Delhi University and I.I.T- Delhi, Roorkee & Kharagpur. Earthquake Risk
Evaluation Centre, IMD, had been entrusted to collate the data, generate new inputs, integrate
multi thematic data and 1st level Seismic Hazard Microzonation map of NCT of Delhi in
1:50,000 scale has been completed and Delhi has been divided into three hazard level (Low,
medium and high) and hazard levels have further been divided into nine micro-zones of likely
uniform seismic hazard and ground response pattern.
As per 1st level Seismic Hazard Microzonation Map of NCT of Delhi, the area of East,
North, North East part of Delhi comes under high hazard due to liquefaction Potential of
newer Alluvium Proximal to Yamuna River and North-West, West, South West and some part
of South & New Delhi comes under Moderate Hazard.
36.

Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh) and its Seismic Background :-

Geologically, Ghaziabad forms a part of the Indo-Gangetic alluvium. Soil is

characterized mainly by silty sand and loamy soils. Geotechnical investigations indicate that
there is no hard rock till 25 m below ground level. As per the seismic zoning map of India,
Ghaziabad falls in sever intensity zone (Zone IV) but there are a lot of high rise buildings have
already been constructed and further construction are in progress on raft foundations in Vaishali,
Raj Nagar Extension and other places without considering seismic zone factors for requirement of
strong foundation in slity sand and loamy soils strata of Hindon River which have soil conditions
and the level of water table favorable for liquefaction or settlements under earthquake vibrations
has greater risk to buildings / structures.
37.
That If an active fault trace is identified by the Geological Survey of India, a structure for
human occupancy should not be placed over the fault trace and must be set back by a minimum
of 15 meter on either side of fault trace.
38. That the Geological Survey of India, Northern Region, Lucknow replied vide letter no.
2255/RTI/2341/03-14/NR/LKO dated 11.06.2014 towards following questions :Q. 1. Whether laboratory testing for geotechnical properties of Soils and Rocks is of prime
Significance in qualitative & correct evaluation / assessment / Geotechnical study of Soil
& Rock properties with the impact of both short term and long term stress on it for the
design of Civil Engineering structures, especially in Earthquake Prone Areas under
seismic zones III, IV & V.
Ans. : Yes, it is significant, especially when the perspective is for the impact of earthquake
forces on the civil / engineered structures. For further details kindly refer Indian
Standard criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, part 1 general provisions
and buildings (5th revision) IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002
Q.2. Whether those areas, which are under seismic zones III, IV & V of earthquake prone
areas, have soil conditions and the level of water table favorable for liquefaction or
settlements under earthquake vibrations has greater risk to buildings / structures should
be given special consideration to grant land use zoning and to conduct proper
Geotechnical Field study & Lab testing for determination of bearing capacity of soil
instead of only field K-Value test for the finalization of type of foundation of new
buildings / structures etc. for safety purposes.
Ans.: The subsurface / foundation level soils in areas falling in high seismic hazard zones of
Seismic Zoning Map of India should be carefully examined for liquefiability conditions
and accordingly the designing of the civil structures should normally be decided. For
more information, kindly consult IS 1893 (Part 1) : 2002.
39.
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION / SOIL INVESTIGATION :- In true engineering terms, the
understanding of Geotechnical Engineering as it is known today began early in the 18th century
(Skempton, 1985).

"Geotechnical Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze - so as to withstand forces we cannot really
assess - in such a way that the community-at-large has no reason to suspect the extent
of our ignorance."
The publication of Erdbaumechanik auf Bodenphysikalisher Grundlage by Karl
Terzaghi in 1925 gave birth to a new era in the development of soil mechanics. Karl Terzaghi is
known as the father of modern soil mechanics. The first conference of the International Society of
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering (ISSMFE) was held at Harvard University in 1936 with
Karl Terzaghi presiding. The conference was possible due to the conviction and efforts of

Professor Arthur Casagrande of Harvard University. About 200 individuals representing 21

countries attended this conference.
In 1939, Terzaghi delivered the 45th James Forrest Lecture at the Institution of Civil
Engineers, London. His lecture was entitled Soil MechanicsA New Chapter in Engineering
Science. In it, he proclaimed that most of the foundation failures that occurred were no longer
acts of God.
In 1997, the ISSMFE was changed to ISSMGE (International Society of Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering) to reflect its true scope.
The designing of any structure begins with the assessment of the loads from the
superstructure and the adequacy of the foundation strata to bear the superimposed loads.
Soils are products of nature that have been subjected to a variety of natural
processes over space and time. Thus, an appropriate site investigation based on sound technical
judgement is necessary to determine the nature of the soils at a proposed site for design and
construction.
Soil investigation is an important part of the design process, it is thus of utmost
importance to evolve and acceptable practice for planning of soil investigation and appropriate
recommendation for foundation. Also before designing foundation of the structure every soil
investigation report should be examined at an appropriate level before acceptance of the
recommendation regarding the type of foundation and the allowable bearing pressure.
40.
That as per the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007 vide NOTIFICATION No.
67/MA/O/C-4/3R-8/2002 Kolkata, the 14th day of February, 2007 ;
(33) "Geo-technical Engineer" shall mean a person who having a minimum bachelors degree in
civil or construction engineering from a recognized university, institute or an equivalent
engineering qualification recognized by the Government and having not less than five years'
experience in soil investigation work and formulation of basis for design and construction of
different types of foundation;
41.
That in the matter of ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER Vs ANUJ JOSHI (C.A. NO. 6736 OF
2013): the honble Supreme Court of India has directed that ;
14. Conclusion The idea of construction of a 30km power channel in lieu of existing
dam cannot be accepted at this stage on account of;
(i) Geological and Geotechnical Investigations not done,
42.
That in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure
Company (C. A. NO.11150 OF 2013), the honble Supreme Court of India mentioned ;
55. (i) It has been pointed out on behalf of the Municipal Corporation that subsequent
to a PIL in the Bombay High Court in the case of Tardeo Haji Ali Residents Welfare Association,
the State Government has constituted a Technical Committee for High-Rise Buildings. As per
the note submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, the terms of
reference of the committee are as follows:b) Structural and Geotechnical Points:(1) Soil Report indicating soil strata, depth of the hard rock, etc.
(2) Type of foundation i.e. pile foundation or raft foundation or open foundation.

43.
That in RE. Versus Construction Of Park At Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary Anand Arya
& Others in the honble Supreme Court of India, the honble mentioned ;
1. At point No. 44.12.8b.IV :- As per order of the MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND
FORESTS Notification New Delhi, the 14th September,
2006 S.O. 1533(E), the following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance
from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central
Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category `A' in
the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for
matters falling under Category `B' in the said Schedule, before any construction work;
At sub point no. 44.12.8b.IV.II : Specific Condition : 1.4 Pre-construction investigations e.g. bore houses, soil testing?
2.
At point no. 48:- the honble Counrt mentioned that Mr. Jayant Bhushan,
submitted that though the area of covered construction in the project was only 6999.50 square
metres, the project by its very nature provided facilities open to the sky and in that case, the
whole of the activity area would constitute the built-up area. He then referred to the definition of
activity [that includes ;

(iv) pre-construction investigations e.g. bore houses, soil testing?.

44.
That S.E. (Design) II, Delhi Development Authority informed under RTI reply dated
18.07.2014 vide letter no. F21/SE(D)II/Misc/Tech/CDO/Pt. File that ;
The requisite application performa with eligibility criteria for registration /

empanelment of Geo-technical investigation consultant / soil consultant in DDA is as

follows ;
1. Individual :- M.Tech (Soil Mech & Foundation Engg.) with own Lab
2. Partnership Firm :- All partners should be BE/B.Tech (Civil) and one partner should
be M.Tech (Soil Mech & Foundation Engg.) with own Lab
3. Pvt. Ltd. Firm :- i) The firm should be registered with concerned authority
ii) at least one director / subscriber of the firm should be M.Tech
(Soil Mechnics & Foundation Engg.) and one more director / subscriber should be
B.Tech (Civil). The firm should have at least two years experience in the field of
soil testing and also having its own lab.
45. That following Departments / Ministry / Authority are registering Geotechnical Consultants
to execute Geotechnical Investigation projects ;
1. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi vide letter no. RW-NH/34065
/5/2014 S&R(B) dated 14.07.2014 informed that details are on web site.
2. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, SAS Nagar vide letter no. 2845
dated 11.06.2014
3. National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi vide letter no. 11041/131/2014Admn/RTI/6806 dated 18.07.2014 ;

it is stated that as per the Contract Agreement, DPR Consultants takes care all type
of Soil Investigation required for the project.
4. Military Engineering Services, HQ of MOD (Army), Delhi vide letter No.
93348/Misc/Consult/271/E2 Des-1 dated 07.10.2014 ;
For registration / enlistment as Geotech Consultant any firm has to apply as per
provisions laid down in SOP for enlistment of Engineering Consultants for MES as
available on Website www.mes.gov.in
46.
That Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd., Mumbai vide letter no. RTI/ SKR-SMF dated
13.06.2014 informed there is not any procedure of registration of Geotechnical Consultants in
HPCL but enlisted Geotechnical Consultants for their big & important projects and refused to
provide details of enlisted consultants with following comments ;
the information sought by you cannot be disclosed as per exemption clause of RTI
47.
That NTPC Ltd., New Delhi vide letter no. 01:CP:RTI-6410/2014 dated 23.06.2014
informed that NTPC enlists agencies for conducting Geotechnical work and issues NIA but
refused to disclose the procedure of registration and name & addresses of the consultants with
following comment ;
4. the details of agencies enlisted for Geotechnical Investigation cannot be furnished
as it is for specific use for tendering for NTPC projects only.
48. That in reply of following questions under RTI reply ;
1. Please provide the details of necessary registration certificates / documents etc. which
are required to get registration as a Geotechnical investigation Consultant.
3.. If there is no procedure of registration of Geotechnical Investigation contractor please
provide the name of Govt. Department / Authority from where these companies
should be registered to issue soil investigation report for recommendation of type of
foundations
the following various Govt. Departments of Central & State / Municipal Corporations /
Development Authorities of different States of India have replied that ;
1. Public Works Division, Head Quarter, New Delhi vide letter No. 2197 dated 10/06/2014 ;
There is no such category for Enlistment / Registration in CPWD / PWD
2. Central Public Works Division, Head Quarter, New Delhi vide letter No. 572 dated
29.05.2014 ;
There is no such provision for registration of Geotechnical Investigation and Pile
Foundation
3. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Head Office, Mumbai vide letter No. 6264 dated 18.6.2014 ;
We are not carrying out registration for Geotechnical Investigation Consultant with this
office.
4. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Northern Region, New Delhi vide letter No. 298 dated
26.05.2014 ;
Since the subject is not dealt by this office and we are aware of the Public Authority.

5. Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vide letter No. ONGC/DPI/13905/BB/2014 dated 20.06.2014 ;
ONGC does not register any Geotechnical Investigation Consultant and Pile Contractor
6. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd., Gurgaon vide letter No. CP/RTI/2014/49 dated
23.06.2014 ;
Power Grid, Corporate Centre has not registered for Geotechnical Investigation and Pile
Foundation Contractors. When we required such type of job, in that condition we offer
bid.
7. Engineers India Ltd., Head Office, New Delhi vide letter No. 8575-RTI-75-41-LET-2872014 dated 23.06.2014 ;
EIL does not Enlist Geotechnical Investigation Consultant.
8. Northern Railway, Head Quarters Office, New Delhi vide letter No. 10-W/O/Misc/ Policy
/RTI/Act/APIO/ Engg. Genl. dated 26.06.2014 ;
There is no such list of registration of Geotechnical Consultant in this Railway.
9. National Projects Constructions Corp. LTd., Central Office, Faridabad vide letter no.
500160/RTI Act-05/1495/4502 dated 11.07.2014 ;
No. 1) There is no such document available for registration of Geo-technical Consultant.
No. 2) NPCC select architectural / Engg. Consultants through open tendering and Geotechnical investigation is the part of scope of Arch./Engg. Consultant.
10. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. Corporate Office, New Delhi vide letter No.
PIO/RTI/ 159/ 12 dated 14.07.2014 ;
There is no separate registration for Soil Investigation Consultant & Pile Foundation
Contractor with EPI. Such Jobs or along with other works are awarded need based on
case to case basis by inviting tenders.
11. Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd., Mumbai vide letter No. RTI/ SKR-SMF dated
13.06.2014 ;
There is no separate procedure for registration as a Geotechnical Investigation
Consultant with HPCL.
12.. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vide letter 2013/DMRC/CC/RTI/3687
dated 22.07.2014 ;
The construction work of DMRC is being carried out by the construction agencies
and the work of Geotechnical Investigation and Pile Foundation is included in their
work contracts. No separate consultants are registered for this job.
13. Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation, New Delhi vide letter No. 0
17035/8/2013-H, FTS-8219 dated 18.06.2014 ;
MOHUPA does not approve / register Technical Consultants for Sub-Soil
Investigations.
14. U.P. Power Transmission Corp Ltd., Lucknow vide letter No. 7158 C.E./Trans.II/RTI dated 10.11.2014 ;

1.
3.

No registration required.
Geotechnical Investigation work got done by either turnkey agencies /
contractors.

15. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Dev Authority vide letter ED/MMRDA/RTI/SKJ/14/113

dated 02.06.2014 ;
MMRDA does not have its own registration system for the consultants and
contractors.
16. RITES Limited, Gurgaon vide letter No. RITES/PR/RTI/2029/2014-15/120 dated
03.06.2014 ;
There is no such type of arrangement / criteria for registration of consultant in
Geotech SBU of RITES. However for conducting Geotechnical Investigations, RITES
engage the agencies through open tendering process in which certain qualifying
criteria are asked from bidder which are audited accounts, Completion Certificates
of similar nature of works (issued by Govt. Departments / PSU / Govt.
Undertakings etc. only).
17. Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd., New Delhi vide letter No.
TCIL/052/601 /296/14-CPIO dated 13.06.2014 ;
TCIL does not conduct any registration as a Geotechnical Investigation Consultant
& Pile Foundation Contractor.
18. Greater Cochin Dev Authority, Cochin vide letter no. 3762/IO/2014/GCDA dated
09.06.2014 ;
it is informed that GCDA does not execute registration of Geotechnical
Consultancy.
19. IRCON International Ltd., New Delhi vide letter no. IRCON/PIO/CO/RTI/05/478/
2387 dated 09.06.2014 ;
There is no physical procedure of registration of a Consultant and Contractor in
IRCON.
20. National Buildings Construction Corp Ltd., New Delhi vide letter no. NBCC/RTI/
1974/ 2014/635 dated 06.06.2014 ;
It is intimate that this Public Authority does not register Geotechnical Consultants
/ Pile Foundation Contractors.
21. East Delhi Municipal Corp, HQ, Delhi vide letter no. PIO/EE(B)HQ/EDMC/201415/D-31 dated 13.06.2014 ;
The building (HQ) is not dealing with Soil Investigation / foundation testing
registration of agencies for such purpose.
22. Town and Country Planning Org. of Ministry of Urban Development vide letter
no. 48-2014/coord/TCPO dated 30/05/2014 ;
Town and Country Planning Org does not deal with the approval of any
building plans/design etc. The information sought differs from town to town,
State to State.

23. Ahmedabad Urban Dev. Authority vide letter No. 5503 dated 09.06.2014 ;
Information asked is not based on record available
24. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., New Delhi vide CPIO letter No. AA/CPIO/RTI/201415 dated 21.06.2014 ;
BHEL PS/Project Engineering Management located at Noida does not register
Geotechnical Consultants
24a. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., New Delhi vide Appellate Committee letter no.
947/15/07/2014 dated 24.09.2014 ;
On seeking comments from the CPIO it has been informed that in addition to
what has been stated in the reply, since the particular package is not required
by PEM or CMM, there is no explicit registration procedure for the same.
25. Ghaziabad Development Authority vide letter no. 366/ Zone-1 dated 23.08.2014
1. GDA, Ghaziabad (UP) registers contractors for civil works. No company /
society is registered for Geotechnical Consultants for soils and pile
foundation.
2. There is no procedure to register Geotechnical Investigation Consultant and
pile foundation contractor in GDA. As per requirement GDA takes advice from
expert company / society of this field.
26. Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Lucknow vide letter no. 1437 dated 19.06.2014
provided regulations book for classification and enlistment of contractors in Uttar
Pradesh Jal Nigam but there is no procedure has been mentioned for enlistment
of Geotechnical Consultants in this book.
27. Housing Urban Development Authority, O/o the Superintending Engineer,
Circle No.-I, Gurgaon (Haryana) vide letter no. 12153 dated 11.07.2014 ;
this office is not party to any process involving the registration of Geotechnical
Consultants.
27a. Housing Urban Development Authority, O/o the Superintending Engineer,
Circle No. -II, Gurgaon (Haryana) vide letter no. 9039 dated 11.07.2014 ;
No such document found in the record available in this office.
27b. Housing Urban Development Authority, Senior Town Planner, Gurgaon vide
letter no. 448 dated 18.07.2014 ;
it is intimated that information sought in the application received vide letter
reference, does not relate to this office.
27c. Housing Urban Development Authority, Rewari vide letter no. 104 dated
05.01.2015 ;
Point no. 1: Point does not relate to this office.
28. GAIL (Inida) LTd., New Delhi vide appellate authority order no. 469 (3091) / 2014
dated 18.06.2014 ;

As reported by Corporate RTI Cell, all efforts were made to get the desired
information from different departments of GAIL. However, as per comments
received from various process owners, the desired information is not available.
29. Greater Noida Industrial Dev. Authority vide letter No. 1136 dated 14.11.2014 ;
GNIDA invites sealed quotation for Soil Investigation work on the basis of
minimum rates as per requirement.
(GNIDA has not informed that GNIDA is registering Geotechnical Consultants)
49.
That the Ministry of Science and Technology, Govt. of India informed under RTI reply
dated 26.09.2014 vide letter No. NRDMS/11/BS/RTI/2014 towards getting information of
necessary documents for getting registration as a geotechnical consultant & laboratory alongwith
the information of approved geotechnical consultants by the Ministry of Science & Technology ;
It is stated that NRDMS division of DST has not approved / registered as technical
consultant for sub-soil investigations or geotechnical consultants in the department
50.
That following State Govt. undertakings and Development Authority have not provided
information of procedure of registration of Geotechnical Consultants under RTI Act till date
however information of receipt and transfer of RTI application has been provided ;
1. U. P. Power Corp. Ltd., Lucknow vide letter no. 8186 dated 15.10.2014
2. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd., Lucknow vide letter no. 710 dated
19.06.2014
3. Kolkata Metropolitan Dev. Authority,Kolkata vide letter no.747/1 dated 04.06.2014
51.
That the concept of Laboratory Accreditation was developed to provide a means for thirdparty certification of the competence of laboratories to perform specific type(s) of testing and
calibration. Laboratory Accreditation enhances customer confidence in accepting testing /
calibration reports issued by accredited laboratories.
National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) is an
autonomous body under the aegis of Department of Science & Technology, Government of
India. NABL has been established with the objective to provide Government, Regulators and
Industry with a scheme of laboratory accreditation through third-party assessment for formally
recognizing the technical competence of laboratories. Classification of the Testing Laboratories
has been done on the basis of basic fields of testing.
52.
That the Ministry of Science and Technology, Govt. of India has forwarded RTI application
dated 15.05.2014 to the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories,
Gurgaon vide letter No. AI/14/01/RTI/2014 dated 18.06.2014 to provide answer of following
question ;
5. Whether the whole laboratory or equipment which are being used for tests on soil
samples for precise laboratory tests to define the basic soil properties are compulsory
to register / calibrate from NABL, which is autonomous body under the aegis of
Department of Science & Technology or any other Govt. Agency / Deptt.
the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories, Gurgaon
informed vide letter no. NABL/RTI/174/2014 dated 23.07.2014 towards the reply of above noted
question which has been forwarded by the Department of Science and Technology to NABL that ;

NABL provides voluntary laboratory accreditation program for testing and

calibration.
53.
That the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories, Gurgaon
informed vide letter no. NABL/RTI/168/2014 dated 01.07.2014 towards RTI application dated
19.05.2014 that ;
Q.1 : Whether the whole laboratory or equipment which are being used for tests on
soil samples for precise laboratory tests to define the basis soil properties for
Geological Investigation are compulsory to register / calibrate from the NABL.
Ans. : NABL is an autonomous body under the Deptt. of Science & Technology. NABL is
regd. as a Society under the Societies Registration Act and grant accreditation to
testing and calibration labs. The accreditation offered by NABL is voluntary in
nature and does not offer any program for compulsory registration or ask for
compulsory calibration.
Q.4 : Please provide the names and address of individuals / companies / org./ research
laboratories etc. which have been approved as registered laboratory for soil testing
only for Geotechnical Investigation purpose (not to building materials testing) by
the NABL from the 1st April, 2011 to till date.
Ans. NABL does not offer any program for registration. However, it offers accreditation
program for grant of accreditation for testing and calibration laboratories.
54.
That the Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi informed under RTI reply vide letter no.
PP & C (T & C)/42 dated 21.07.2014 ;
Q.1 : Whether BIS issues accreditation certificate for Soil Testing Laboratory for precise
laboratory tests to define the basic soil properties to evaluate the Soil / Rock as
regards its bearing power as per ;
i) Indian Standards on methods of test for Soil / Rock IS : 2720
ii) Free swelling Index as per IS : 2911 (Part III)
III) Chemical analysis on water samples IS : 3025 (Part 11, 24 & 32)
Ans.: In accordance with the provisions of BIS LRS 2013, BIS recognizes laboratories for
testing as per relevant the Indian Standards and does not issue accreditation
certificates. Thus far, BIS has not recognized any laboratory for IS : 2720, IS : 2911
(Part 3) and IS 3025 (Part 11, 24 & 32).
55.

That RITES Ltd. informed vide letter no. RITES Ltd./PR/RTI/2029/2014-15/120 dated
03.06.2014 that ;
4. Any lab willing to be registered as Geotech Consultants with RITES must either
have own NABL / ISO accredited laboratory or may produce letter of Association
of their firm with NABL / ISO accredited laboratory.
5. No such registered panel of Geotech consultants exist as on date.

However RITES Ltd. has conducted a lot of Soil Investigation projects in all over India by
awarding projects to those various Private Geotechnical Consultants / Agencies which are not
having registered Soil testing laboratories and owner of the firm are not well qualified.
56.
That U. P. Power Transmission Corp Ltd., Lucknow vide letter no. 7158 dated 10.11.2014
informed under RTI reply that Calibration with NABL required.

57.
That Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vide letter no. 3687 dated 22.07.2014
informed under RTI reply that ;
The Contractors can get the testing done by reputed laboratories as approved by
engineer at site.
However Soil Investigation contractors are submitting their report after conducting
tests in their unregistered laboratories.
58.
That to know the procedure of sanctioning of building plans from the Development
Authorities who are approving building plans under seismic zones III, IV and V, following questions
have been asked under RTI Act ;
4.. Whether Soil Investigation report for soil data including type of soil & design safe
bearing capacity for the recommendation of type of foundations of new building /
structure is necessary documentary requirement for applying of new building /
structure permission from the Development Authority.
5.. If a builder submits building plan with pile foundation recommendation due to low
bearing capacity of soil of that area for new building permission but after the
approval of building that builder adopted open raft foundation instead of piles to
save cost. In this connection, please provide the answer of following questions :a) Whether builder has to obtained any necessary clearance / certificate for
completion of recommended pile foundations before starting the building
construction work.
b) Whether there is any other procedure to check that recommended pile
foundations have been adopted by the builder or not after the sanction of building
plan.
c) If that building collapsed in future, in that case who will be responsible?
6. If a builder submits a fabricated soil investigation report alongwith false K-Value for
analysis of the raft foundation instead of pile foundations to save project cost, in that
case who will be responsible for any type of damage / accident in future and whether
there is any other procedure to ensure the recommendation of foundation for that
particular area.
In reply of above question no. 4 to 6, following reputed Development Authorities of
Uttar Pradesh State and in NCR of Delhi have provided information within 4-6 months after
several letters / appeals of RTI applications as ;
1. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vide letter No. RTI/2014/406
dated 13.01.2015 informed ;
it is informed towards serial no. 4, 5 and 6 that as per clause 25 of Greater Noida
Building bylaws 2010, No objection has to be obtained from the related society.
Copy of clause 25 of Building byelaws is enclosed.
As copy of the building byelaws, provided by the Authority, it has been mentioned that ;
As per clause 25.2 Structure Design ; The structure design of any item of building shall be
carried out in accordance with Part VI (Structural
Design, Section-I) of National Building Code of India,National Building Code-2005, prepared
by Indian Standards Institution and as prevalent at the time of execution of works.

As per clause 25.8 Structural Safety for Natural Hazard Protection ; For building more
than three stories
(including ground floor) or more than 12.0 metre height and important facilities, the
requirements specified in the Indian Standard Code and Guidelines and other documents
shall be observed for structural safety and natural hazards protection of building.
It is submitted that Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority is not following Indian
Standards and other relevant codes during sanction of building plans.
2. Ghaziabad Development Authority vide letter No. 413 dated 02.09.2014 informed ;
4.. Authority assures action towards following of rules under U.P. City Planning and
Development Act 1973 and Building byelaws 2008 before issuing completion
certificate.
5.. Answer of question 5 a,b,c as given towards question no. 4
6.. Builder / Developer / Structural Engineer will be responsible for any loss /
accident during building construction.
It is submitted that GDA is observing only building construction as per sanctioned building
plan not type of foundation according to bearing capacity of soil strata of seismic zone IV.
3. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vide letter no. 1838 dated
11.09.2014 informed ;
5a. As per building bylaws, certified building Plan from IIT is compulsory at the
time of building plan approval for multistoried buildings
5b. as answer given at 5a
5c. Builder, Structure Engineer and Architect are fully responsible for structural
stability of building construction as per building bylaws.
6.. as answer given at 5 a
It is submitted that NOIDA is relying only building plan not building foundation according
to bearing capacity of soil of seismic Zone IV as some builders are taking soil reports of
their choice with raft foundation recommendations to save time and money from
unqualified persons who are running geotechnical agencies without having soil testing
laboratories.
Further it is submitted that above building plan sanctioning system is only an example and this is
the only procedure which is applicable almost in all development authorities and municipal
corporations of all over India with the cost of life and property of innocent people.
59.

That type of foundations for high rise buildings :-

Raft Foundation :- That when the supporting soil is not too compressible a flat
concrete slab and beam type of raft under the building structure and on ground surface is likely to
be more economical.
Pile foundation :- That Pile Foundations shall be designed in such a way that the load
from the structure it supports can be transmitted to the soil without causing any soil failure and
without causing such settlement, differential or total under permanent/transient loading as may
result in structural damage and/or functional distress. The pile shaft should have adequate
structural capacity to withstand all loads (vertical, axial or otherwise) and moments which are to
be transmitted to the subsoil.

60.

Indian National Committee on Geotechnical Engineering :-

The Indian National Committee on Geotechnical Engineering (INCGE) was constituted

in the year 1991, the apex body in Geotechnical Engineering with the responsibility of coordinating various research activities in the field of rock mechanics and tunneling technology; soil
mechanics and foundation engineering; and instrumentation and measurement techniques. Its
secretariat is located at The Central Soil and Materials Research Station, New Delhi.
During the year 2007-08, 38 research schemes were under implementation under
the supervision of INCGE. Out of this 2 schemes has been completed. The research and
development session of INCGE was held in February, 2008 at New Delhi. In pursuance of its
objectives, the Committee has published 3 state-of-art reports in Geotechnical Engineering in the
country.
61.
That as per Liquefaction studies for seismic Microzonation of Delhi region, conducted
by famous Geological Expert Prof. K. S. Rao and D. Neelima Satyam of Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi (published in CURRENT SCIENCE, 646 VOL.
92, NO. 5 on dated 10 MARCH 2007)
Results :- Since Delhi falls in the high seismic risk zone, there is need for the
assessment of liquefaction potential of the Holocene soils in trans-Yamuna region, where the
depth of soil goes up to 150 meter saturated sandy soils are susceptible to earthquake-induced
liquefaction. Hence, structures located especially on these areas that are not designed for
earthquake forces are worst affected. Amplification of soil will be high on soft, saturated
alluvium than on hard rock. The area has extensive tracts of Delhi silt and loose sand. Due to
recurring seismic activity, there is a chance of the soil being subjected to liquefaction.
The liquefaction potential is severe in the trans-Yamuna region, some places at Noida,
that are comparatively near the river also shows severe liquefaction potential.
62.
That as per Geological, Geomorphological & Mineral MAP of Delhi, published by the
Geological Survey of India vide Misc. Pub. No. 30, Pt. XVI,
the soil strata is multiple fill alternate sequence of grey micaceous fine to medium
grained sand (terrace alluvium formation)
63.
That as per Geology and Mineral Resources of Haryana, published by the Geological
Survey of India in year 2012 vide misc. publication no. 30 part XVIII (2nd revised),
important cities i.e. Ambala, Sonepat, Rohtak, Karnal, Gurgaon, Faridabad,
Panipat, Rewari and Yamunanagar districts lie in Seismic Zone IV.
64.
That the Hindu published an article; A disaster waiting to happen at
http://m.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/a-disaster-waiting-to-happen/article7142491.ece/
The unchecked growth of unauthorized colonies has compounded the problem. Delhi
and NCR may have escaped the wrath of Saturdays earthquake but it is virtually sitting on a fault
line. A major earthquake measuring six or more on the Richter scale may spell disaster in the city,
which is seeing unbridled construction for the past few years
While on one side there are uncountable high-rise commercial and residential
buildings that have turned Delhi and satellite towns of Gurgaon, Noida, Faridabad, Ghaziabad,
and Sonepat which fall in seismic zone 4 - into cities of concrete, the unchecked growth of
unauthorized colonies have compounded the problem.

Experts believe there could be serious issues in structural designs and implementation
of building codes making the high-rises susceptible to strong vibrations. The concrete structures
that have come up in unauthorised colonies do not meet even the basic requirements of building
codes.
The 2010 Lalita Park building collapse, which left 71 dead and more than 200 injured, is
a case in point. The five-floor residential building, which housed more than 200 tenants and had
several sweatshops running on its premises, had flouted all rules of building construction.
Such structures in unauthorized colonies and lal dora area are quite vulnerable. A
large number of such structures have come up along the banks of the Yamuna where the severity
of earthquake increases due to loose soil. While the new government in Delhi should look at this
issue carefully, the civic agencies are also required to look at the old structures in the Walled City,
which require strengthening, said R.C. Kehar, former chairman-cum-managing director,
National Building Construction Corporation.
While there are strict building codes for high rises in Delhi and NCR, experts agree
that many structures still lack structural safety. Illegal changes in shape and design of the
structure during the construction stage make these buildings vulnerable.
There are enough codes and practices published by the Bureau of Indian Standard
BIS on how to design earthquake resistant structures. But implementation is an issue. It is the job
of structural engineers to give proper shape and form to a building, which has strong vertical load
bearing capacity as well as face the horizontal forces in times of earthquake. But structural
engineers are rarely involved in overall design, planning and construction of the building, said
Mahesh Tandon, president, Indian Associations of Structural Engineers.
Dikshu Kukreja, managing director of prominent architectural firm C.P. Kukreja and
Associates, Delhi also concurs on this. The concept of getting structural stability certificate came
up only a few years ago. Numerous changes are made in the structural design during the
construction, Mr. Kukreja said.
65.
That as per former secretary general of Lok Sabha, T K Viswanathan statement on
seismic vulnerability of the Parliament building, published by a leading newspaper Indianexpress ;
Viswanathan has also cited an IIT-Roorkee study on the seismic vulnerability of the
building, which was built without beams, concrete and cement. The foundation is so weak that
it is estimated that an earthquake of 5.2 on the Richter scale could reduce the structure to
rubble.
Source : http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/inside-track-house-on-fire
66.
That an article has been published by Hindustantimes on Supertech Ltd. matter namely
Your building is far from safe ;
On a shaky foundation :
Dont extra floors added to a building make it unsafe? The Supreme Court, while hearing
the case of Supertech Emerald Court last week, had been told that in 2005 the builder had
secured permission to construct 15 towers in the entire complex. In 2006, the plan was revised to
include one more tower of G plus 11 and a shopping complex.
In 2009, the authority converted the shopping complex to a residential tower and allowed
construction for ground plus 24 floors in both the new towers. Then in 2012 permission was given
to construct 40 floors. The question posed by the Bench was: If you had sanction for 24 floors,

the foundation of the towers must have been of the nature to sustain the load of a 24-storey
building. How did you add 16 more floors?
(Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/chunk-ht-ui-htestates-topstories/your-building-is-farfrom-safe/article1-1218362.aspx)
67.
That in Major Sandeep Donald Shah Vs UOI, WP (C) NO. 376 OF 2014), the honble
Supreme Court has directed the Centre to make people aware about earthquake and safety
measures.
68.
That in the honble Supreme Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India reported in 2012
(12) SCALE 307 in the following words:The scheme under the Indian Constitution unambiguously enshrines in itself the right of a
citizen to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to life is a right to live with
dignity, safety and in a clean environment.
69.
That in the matter of Padma v. Hiralal Motilal Desarda reported at, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has observed as under in paragraphs 31 and 32 (of reported judgment in SCC) that;
Laws dealing with development planning are indispensable to sanitation and
healthy urbanization, Development planning comprehensively takes care of
statutory, manual, administrative and land-use laws hand in hand with
architectural creativity. In the words of a well-known architect, development
planning is the DNA of urbanization - the genetic code that determines what will
get built. A development plan is essential to the aesthetics of urban society.
70.

That the Constitution (Seventy - Fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 :

The Constitution of India has assigned the subjects pertaining to the urban areas to the
State Legislates. In so far as the urban issues are concerned, the legislative powers of the Union
are limited only to the following subject/areas:
Delhi and other Union Territories
Amendment of the Constitution of India :
In exercise of these legislative powers, the Parliament of India has enacted the following
legislations which are administrated by the Ministry of Urban Development.
This is a revolutionary piece of legislation by which Constitution of India was amended to
incorporate a separate Chapter on Urban Local Bodies, which seeks to redefine their role,
power, function and FINANCES. The salient features of this Act are:
Urban Local Bodies, to be known as Municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils
and Nagar Panchayat depending on the population, shall be constituted through universal adult
franchise in each notified urban area of the country.
The Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution has listed the following functions of the
urban local bodies:
i) Urban Planning including Town Planning.
ii) Regulation of Land-Use and Construction of Buildings.

Constitution (74th Amendment) Act 1992 has made the urban local bodies into vibrant self
governing institutions. This has ushered in a new era of urban governance and urban
management in India.
71.
That in the matter of PEEKAY CONSTRUCTION v. CHANDRASEKHARA HEGDE, ILR 1989
KAR 249 & 271 : the honble Supreme court held that;
"The decision of the Queens Bench in Yabbicom v. King lays down the principle that
approval of a plan contrary to the bye-laws of the Corporation does not entitle the builder to
construct in violation bye-laws. The Corporation had no power legally to approve a plan which
was not in accordance with the bye- law, the approval given by it was not an 'approval' at all." At
page 275, the principles were stated thus:
(i)

The City Corporation is bound by the reservation of the sites for particular purposes
under the Statutory Schemes;

ii)

Sanction of the building plan by the Corporation, by itself, will not legalise the
construction, if the construction is otherwise opposed to the scheme governing the
area;

(ii)

The residents of the area have a valid interest in the preservation of the area in the
manner contemplated by the scheme or the plan governing the area;

72. That in the matter of M.I. Builders Pvt Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, the honble Supreme
Court held that;
"This Court in numerous decision has held that no consideration should be shown to the
builder or any other person where construction is unauthorised. This dicta is now almost
bordering rule of law"...
73. That in the matter of Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamilnadu, (2000) SCC 425: a
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court observed that;
sixty two orders granting exemption were issued by Government within 6 months in an
arbitrary manner in violation of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (35 of 1972).
At para 37 of the judgment, their Lordships held that;
"Mere reading of this reveals administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency and laxity on the
part of the authorities concerned being conceded which has led to the result, that half of the city
buildings are unauthorized, violating the town planning legislation and within staring eyes the
Government feels helpless to let it pass; as the period of limitation has gone, so no action could
be taken. This mess is the creation out of the inefficiency, callousness and the failure of the
statutory functionaries to perform their obligation under the Act. Because of the largeness of the
illegalities it has placed the Government in a situation of helplessness as knowing the illegalities,
which are writ large, no administrative action of demolition of such large number of cases is
feasible.
The seriousness of the situation does not stay here when it further records; this is
the pattern in other metropolitan cities of India. What is the reason? Does the Act and Rules
not clearly lay down, what constructions are legal, what not? Are the consequences of such illegal
constructions not laid down? Does the statute not provide for controlled development of cities
and rural lands in the interest of the welfare of the people to cater to public convenience, safety,
health etc? Why this inaction? The Government may have a gainful eye in this process of
regularization to gain affluence by enriching coffers of the State resources but this gain is
insignificant compared to the loss to the public.

Before such pattern becomes cancerous and spreads to all parts of this country, it is
high time that remedial measure was taken by the State to check this pattern. Unless the
administration is toned up, the persons entrusted to implement the scheme of the Act are
made answerable to the laches on their failure to perform their statutory obligations, it would
continue to result with wrongful gains to the violators of the law at the cost of the public, and
instead of development bring back cities into the hazards of pollution, disorderly traffic, security
risks etc. Such a pattern retards development, jeopardizes all purposeful plans of any city, and
liquidates the expenditure incurred in such development process".
74.
That in the matter of PRATIBHA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.: the honble Supreme Court held that;
"We are also of the view that the tendency of raising unlawful constructions and
unauthorized encroachments is increasing in the entire Country and such activities are
required to be dealt with by firm hands.
Such unlawful constructions are against public interest and hazardous to the
safety of occupiers and residents of multistoried building."
75.
That on 28 June 2014, an 11-storey building under construction collapsed near Chennai.
Special public prosecutor Rajeev Gomes brought this to the notice of the court that the synergetic
and cumulative effect of at least three factors-flawed RCC design, use of inferior quality of
construction material and absence of soil investigation-triggered the collapse of the building at
Chaudi Canacona, Chennai that claimed thirty one lives and injured several construction
workers.
Speaking to TOI, Gomes said that investigating agencies have prima facie found that no
soil testing was done before commencing construction of the buildings, as mandated.
"Besides, as the building was constructed on reclaimed land, extra caution should have
been exercised in determining the load bearing capacity of the soil.
"The foundation or the column footing does not take the load upon itself, but
transfers the load to the ground below. Therefore, proper soil investigation has to be carried
out so as to enable the structural engineer to select an appropriate foundation design based
on the soil test report," a RCC consultant told TOI.
What lends credence to Gomes' arguments are the observations contained in the report of
the team of experts from Goa Engineering College (GEC) headed by K G Gupta throwing light on
the probable causes that led to the building failure. The report states that the building was
constructed on earthfill which does not appear to have been adequately strengthened and that its
collapse was induced by the gravity of the column footing.
"Gradual and increased loosening of soil, especially in large water flow conditions within
the soil mass (as seen in monsoons) is very likely to cause dangerously large scale tilting and
deflection within the adjacent building, on south side of the collapsed building," the report adds.
76.
That Chennai Metropolitan Dev. Authority has not provided any information till date
regarding procedure of registration of Geotechnical Consultants, requirement of soil testing report
for building plan sanction and information of soil testing & building plan sanction for collapsed
building in Chennai on 28.06.2014 towards our RTI Application dated 04.07.2014 however
information of transferring of RTI application has been informed by letter no. G/PIO/10901/2014
dated 14.07.2014.
77.
That on dated 12.07.2009 due to faulty design, Pillar No. 67 of Delhi Metro Rail Corp
Ltd. collapsed, resulting in six deaths that pillar No. 67 was not the only Pillar which had a
defective design resulting in its collapse. There were another appox. 12 Nos. pillars which were
tottering due to defective design. A Police Case No. 344, 345/09 in Police Stattion Amar Colony,
Delhi for Investigation of the accident took place at Zamrudpur had also been registered.

78.
That in State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh (1997) 4 SCC 430, the bureaucracy is
accountable for the acts done in accordance with rules, for all action within its domain and that
hierarchical responsibility for the decision is their in- built discipline. The head of the Department /
designated officer is ultimately responsible and accountable.
79.
The principle of Promissory Estoppel against the Government / Authority under Article
12 of the Constitution of India can be applied and the said issue is already settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. In (1970) 1 SCC 582 [Century Spg. and Mgf. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar
Municipal Council), it is held that the public bodies are not exempted from their liability to
carryout their obligation arising out the representations made by them, when relying upon which a
citizen has altered his position to his prejudice.
80.
That in Indian Council for Enviro Legal Action V/s Union of India (AIR 1996 SC
1446), the Apex Court considering the principle Polluter pays principle held that once the
activity carried on was hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on that activity was
liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by that activity.
81.
That it is the settled law that whenever there is a violation of fundamental right, the
alternative remedy is not a bar at all. It is held by the Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control
Board-II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu & Ors. 2000 (8) Supreme 318 that healthy environment and
sustainable development are fundamental human rights implicit in the right to life.
It is held in the said decision, "In today's emerging jurisprudence, environment rights
which encompass a group of collective rights are described as third generation rights'. The first
generation rights are generally political rights such as those found in the International Convention
on Civil and Political Rights while "second generation rights' are social and economic rights as
found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."
82.
That in 1993, the honble Supreme Court ruled in favour of M.K. Gupta in his case
against the Lucknow Development Authority for not delivering his flat on time. This landmark
judgement brought housing construction under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The court honble observed: "When a statutory authority develops land or allots a site,
or constructs a house for the benefit of a common man, it is 'service' by a builder or contractor...
When possession of the property is not delivered within the stipulated period, the delay so caused
is denial of 'service'. Such disputes or claims are not with respect to the immovable property but
'deficiency in rendering of service' of a particular standard, quality or grade... A person who
applies for allotment of a building site or for a flat constructed by the Development Authority or
enters into an agreement with a builder or a contractor, is a potential user and the nature of

construction is covered under the expression 'service' of any description."

83.
That in Gujarat High Court, in Shriram vs Mitaben on 16 December, 2010 Bench of
honble Shri Jayant Patel Kumari, Abhilasha Kumari j. FA/4643/2008 69/ 69 JUDGMENT ;
18. that In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750, the
Supreme Court was dealing with a case where a Clock Tower owned by the Municipal
Corporation, which was abutting the Highway collapsed resulting in the death of some persons
passing along the said Highway.
It was held that the Municipal Corporation owned special obligation to ensure the
safety of the structure and it was liable for damages for loss of life caused, whether by a patent or a
latent defect and that the principle of res ipsa loquitur was attracted to the case.
20. There is no doubt about the fact that an earthquake is a natural calamity or an Act
of God which is beyond the control of any human being. At the same time it cannot be lost sight of
that the appellants were duty bound to construct the School building in a proper manner, taking
care that the foundations were structurally strong, the nature of soil was conducive to the
construction and the construction was carried out in the manner it ought to be, using good quality
materials.
In short, the duty of taking reasonable care in construction of the School building is
vested upon the appellants and is distinct and separate from the natural calamity, in the form of an

earthquake, that took place. If proper and reasonable care that ought to have been taken, was not
taken by the appellants, they cannot escape liability behind the cloak of Vis major. The Court need
not be restricted by the exceptions to the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, and must examine the case in
light of the principles laid down in M.C.Mehta v. Union of India (Supra), evolving new
principles of liability to deal an unprecedented situation caused by the earthquake. Each case has to
be examined in the context of the peculiar fact-situation that obtains in it. The earthquake may be
a natural calamity but had proper care been taken in the construction of the School building,
may be the tragedy would not have taken place.

25. From the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is clear that :
(b) No soil test, as required by the Municipal bye-laws, was carried out on the
land upon which the School building was constructed.
(c) The second witness of the defendants Mr.Dineshbhai Patel, who is an officer of the
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, has deposed at Exh. 150, that no progress Report has been
placed before the Corporation as per Rules, and no soil test has been done. He has also stated
that without soil test and Load Bearing Capacity Report, no design can be permitted.
When the very soil of the land on which the building was constructed was
never tested and has ultimately been found to be sticky and no Load Bearing Capacity test
was done, the plea of natural catastrophe in the form of an earthquake would not absolve the
appellants from their liability arising on account of negligence. Had proper care been taken in the
construction of the building such as any reasonable and prudent man would take, then, the question
of liability for negligence in the wake of an earthquake, which is undoubtedly an Act of God, may
not have arisen. But this is not the case here. There is ample evidence on record to prove that
the construction of the building was careless and faulty from the foundation itself. When the
foundation of the building was weak and not as per required Norms and Standards of
building, and the Load Bearing Capacity of the soil had not been tested, mere reiteration on
the part of the appellants that the building collapsed due to an Act of God, cannot be accepted.
More so, as gross negligence is clearly and palpably evident from the material on record.
84.
That in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure
Company (C. A. NO.11150 OF 2013), the honble Supreme Court of India reconstituted committee
with new experts including one Member (Soil, Mech. GeoTech. Expert) and another important
guidelines ;
57. (i) As of now, all new building proposals where the height of the building
exceeds 70 meters is referred to the committee. A scrutiny fee for Rs 50,000
per proposal is collected at the time of submission of the proposal. We have
already referred to the existing terms of reference. In view of the discussion in
this matter, in our view, it is desirable that the committee be requested to look
into two additional aspects which are as follows:(ii) The committee will also look into the grievances regarding construction and
technical requirements of the development schemes under DCR 33(7), 33(8),
33(9) and 33(10), whenever brought to the notice of the committee by concerned
persons.
(iii) The committee may as well make recommendations to the State Government with
respect to the new Development Plan which is under drafting.
85.

That in G. Sundarrajan Vs UOI (C.A. 4440 / 2013), the honble Supreme Court mentioned ;
23. We are however deeply concerned with the safety and security of the people of
this country, its environment, its flora and fauna, its marine life, ecology, bio-diversity
and so on which the policy makers cannot be on the guise of national policy, mutilate
or rob of, in such an event the courts can unveil the mask and find out the truth for
the safety, security and welfare of the people and the mother earth.

83. In M. C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086 (Oleum Gas Leakage case), this

Court held that the industries which are engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity, possess serious threat to health and safety of persons and have an absolute and
non-delegable duty to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and safety of the people.
In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996) 3 SCC 212, this
Court held that once the activity carried on in hazardous or inherently dangerous, the
person carrying on such activity is liable to make good losses caused to any other
person by his activity, irrespective of the fact that he took reasonable care while
carrying on his activity.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647, this Court
held that once the activity carried on is hazardous or potential hazardous, the person
carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by
his activity, irrespective of the fact that he took reasonable care. The absolute liability
extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution, but also the cost of restoring
environmental degradation.
86. Disaster Management Plan (DMP) is of paramount importance, since we are dealing

with a substance which has huge potential of causing immense damage to human
beings and to the environment, which may cross over generations after generations.

183. This Court in Chameli Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another (1996) 2 SCC 549
held that an organized society right to live as a human being is not ensured by
meeting only the animal needs of man, but secured only when he is assured of all
facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth.
Right to shelter includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure..
210. In Anderson v. Dunn {19 U.S. [6 Wheat.] 204 (1821)}, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a
different context, long back had stated about the role of the State and the safety of the
citizens: No one is so visionary as to dispute the assertion, that the sole end and aim of all our
institutions is the safety and happiness of the citizen.
After so stating, the U.S. Supreme Court proceeded to observe as follows: That the safety of the people is the supreme law, not only comforts with, but is
indispensable to, the exercise of those powers in their public functionaries, without
which that safety cannot be guarded.
211. In Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, (1990) 1 SCC 613 , this Court, while dealing
with the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims)
Act, 1985, While discussing the concept of parens patriae, the learned Chief Justice
observed that the conception of the parens patriae theory is the obligation of the State
to protect and it takes into custody the rights and the privileges of its citizens for
discharging its obligation. While dealing with the said concept, it has been opined
that the maxim salus populi suprema lex regard for public welfare - is the
highest law.
215. In Pritam Pal v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (1993 Supp (1) SCC 529)
through Registrar, the maxim salus populi suprema lex, i.e., welfare of the people is
the supreme law, was again emphasised upon, though in a different context.
216. At this juncture, I must also refer to the other maxim salys republicae supreme lex, i.e.,
safety of the State is the supreme law and in case of any conflict, an individual must
yield to the collective interest. But, it should not be done at the cost of safety. At all
times and at all quarters, sincere efforts are to be made to maintain and
sustain the safety of the people.

In State of Karnataka and others v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC
684, Welfare of the people is the ultimate goal of all laws, and State action
and above all the Constitution. They have one common object, that is to
promote the well-being and larger interest of the society as a whole and not of
any individual or particular groups carrying any brand names.
228. But when it touches the very atom of life, which is the dearest and noblest possession
of every person, it becomes the obligation of the constitutional courts to see how the
delicate balance has been struck and can remain in a continuum in a sustained position.
To elaborate, unless adequate care, caution and monitoring at every stage is taken and
there is constant vigil, life of some can be in danger. That will be totally shattering
of the constitutional guarantee enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. It would
be guillotining the human right, for when the candle of life gets extinguished, all rights
of that person perish with it. Safety, security and life would constitute a
pyramid within the sanctity of Article 21 and no jettisoning is permissible.
I may particularly put that the proportionality of risk may not be zero regard being
had to the natures unpredictability. All efforts are to be made avoid any man-made
disaster. Though the concept of delicate balance and the doctrine of proportionality of
risk factor gets attracted, yet the same commands the highest degree of constant
alertness, for it is disaster affecting the living. The life of some cannot be sacrificed
for the purpose of the eventual larger good.
86.
That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 [Habanslal
Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited]; (2005) 6 SCC 499 [State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja
Cement Limited]; (2005) 8 SCC 242 (Sanjana M.Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.)
held that if a mandatory violation is established, this Court can entertain writ petition.
87.
That with reference to major earthquake on 25.04.2015 in Neapl & India, the petitioner has
submitted a petition dated 30.04.0215 to the Honble President of India, Honbble Prime Minister
of India, Union Minister of Home Affairs, Union Minister of Urban Development, Home Secretary
of Govt. of India, Secretary (Urban Development), Joint Secretary (Disaster Management Div.),
National Disaster Management Authority, Delhi LG, Delhi Chief Minister and chief secretary of
Delhi Govt. speed post no. ED617528929IN, ED617529102IN, ED617529093IN,
ED617529031IN, ED617529045IN, ED617528985IN, ED617528950IN, ED617529076IN,
ED617529133IN, ED617529120IN, ED617529062IN dated 01/05/2015 respectively but neither
any action nor reply given by all above till date.
That today i.e. 12.05.2015 at 12.38 pm, again another earthquake of 7.1 Richter scale hit
Nepal including North India and NCR of Delhi etc. and the Govt. of India, State Governments &
UTs are not serious to take precautions.
That the petitioner say that he has no other equally efficacious and alternate remedy
in the matter except by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
before this honble court.
88. That this honble court has jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition under provisions of
law.
89. That the petitioner crave leave to, add, alter, amend, and / or modify and / or withdrawn of the
contents of this petition as and when required for the just & proper adjudication.
90. That the petitioner has not filed any other petition in this behalf either in this Honble Court or
before High Court of India of any State.

P R AY E R
The Petitioner, therefore, pray this Honble Court may graciously be pleased ;
a)
1. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government, all State Governments and Union Territories to incorporate provisions
as suggested by the Prof. Arya Committee Report dated 01 July 2004 in Zoning
Regulations and building Bye-Laws for Seismic Zone III, IV and V of natural hazard /
earthquake prone areas as ordered by the Joint Secretary (UD), Ministry of Urban
Development vide D.O. No. K-14011/130/2006-UD-II (Vol-VI) dated 09.04.2012 to
the all Principle Secretaries (UD) of all States / UTs
2..issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government, all State Governments and Union Territories to constitute a committee
under the chairmanship of Dev. Commissioner / Addl. Chief Secretary with Secretary
- Disaster Management, Secretary Urban Development, Chief Town Planning
Officer and Engineer-in-Chief as members to go through the recommendations made
by the Prof. Arya Committee Report dated 1st July 2004 to develop Model Building
Bye-Laws and the review of City, Town & Country Planning Act and the Zoning
Regulations for Seismic Zone III, IV & V of earthquake prone areas and adapt them
to requirement of the state within one month as per D.O. letter No. 31-1/2004-NDMIII dated 13.09.2004 of the National Disaster Management Division of Ministry
of Home Affairs to all States and Union Territories.
3.. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government, all State Governments and Union Territories including Development
Authorities, Municipal Corporations of all States and UTs to follow provisions of
Building Bye-Laws, Indian Standards prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards,
National Building Code of India, 2005, to permit / allow to construct high rise
buildings of more than 15 meter height up to seven stories and more than seven
stories to private builders in Seismic Zone III, IV & V of Earthquake prone areas.
4. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the all State
Governments and Union Territories to adopt prevention, mitigation and preparedness
for earthquake as suggested by Shri N. Gopalaswami, honble Home Secretary of
Govt. of India vide letter D.O. No. 1-18/2002-DM (I) dated 18 December 2002 and
D.O. No. 31/2/2003-NDM-II dated 26 May 2003 to Chief Secretaries of all States.
5. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government, all State Governments and Union Territories to register Geotechnical
Consultancy Agency with required technical qualification to conduct Geotechnical
Investigation work as specified by the Indian Standards to work at all Development
Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Central & State Government Departments,
Govt. of India enterprises and Engineering Consultants and private builders.
6. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government, all State Governments and Union Territories to register Geotechnical
Testing Laboratories to conduct various laboratory tests as specified by the Indian
Standards on soil and water to check its properties for finalization of type of required
foundation of structures / buildings.
7. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government, all State Governments and Union Territories including all Municipal
Corporations and Development Authorities to get Geotechnical Investigation Report
and details of type of foundation alongwith Building Plan for sanctioning building
plan for more than 15 meter up to seven stories and more than seven stories in
Seismic Zone III, IV & V of Earthquake prone areas.
8. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government, all State Governments and Union Territories including all Municipal
Corporations and Development Authorities to check construction of building

foundation as submitted with the Building Plan for sanctioning and issue a
foundation completion certificate.
9. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government, all State Governments and Union Territories to take necessary action
against those Govt. Officials of Development Authorities and Municipal
Corporations who are responsible to permit / allow to construct high rise buildings to
private builders without checking building plans as par Building Bye-Laws, Indian
Standards prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards and National Building Code
of India, 2005, specially made for Seismic Zone III, IV & V of Earthquake prone
areas which have soil conditions and the level of water table favorable for
liquefaction or settlements under earthquake vibrations.
10. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government, all State Governments and Union Territories to take necessary action
against those persons who are working as Geotechnical Consultants as proprietor /
partnership firm / Pvt. Ltd. company without having any degree in Geotechnical
Engineering even in Civil Engineering and Soil testing laboratory and issuing field
reports at minimum charges to builders of builders choice to construct high rise
buildings on raft foundations to save time and money instead of pile foundations
taken to depths in Seismic Zone III, IV & V of Earthquake prone areas on the
account of life of innocent buyers of flats in these building.
11. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government, all State Governments and Union Territories alongwith all
Development Authorities and Municipal Corporations to check the stability of
foundations and construction of those high rise buildings of more then 15 meter in
height and up to seven stories and more than seven stories which are already
constructed or construction work in progress and situated in Seismic Zone III, IV &
V of Earthquake prone areas in the interest of life of public at large.
12. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government, all State Governments and Union Territories alongwith all
Development Authorities and Municipal Corporations to appoint a Geotechnical
Engineer to check the Geotechnical & Foundation activities during construction of
high rise buildings in seismic zones III, IV & V.
13. issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central
Government all State Governments and Union Territories to appoint an expert
committee of experienced and qualified Geotechnical, Structural, Civil Engineers and
other public representatives to check the construction activities in seismic zones III,
IV & V instead of Govt. officials and politicians who do not have any technical
experience in construction field.

(b).

issue a writ or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central Government,

(c).

and / or pass any other order or orders as may be deem fit in the interest of life and
property of the innocent people residing in Seismic Zone III, IV & V earthquake prone
areas which is a fundamental right guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.

AND for which act of kindness and justice, the petitioner will, as in duty bound, and ever pray.
Delhi, this Dated : 12 May, 2015
SANJAY KUMAR JAIN
Petitioner
IX/1983, Lane No. 3,
Kailash Nagar, Delhi 110031
Mob#: 9312278313, 8800001532
E-mail: vishwajains@yahoo.com

VERIFICATION:
I, Sanjay Kumar Jain, the petitioner No.1 above named, residing at Delhi do
hereby on solemn affirmation say and state that whatever is stated in paragraphs No. 1 to 90 is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge and information and the available record and legal
submissions which I believe to be true and the last paragraph contains my humble prayers.
Verified at New Delhi in this 12th day of May, 2015
Petitioner
C.c.:

1. Shri Narendra Modi

Honble Prime Minister of India
New Delhi
2.. Shri Raj Nath Singh, Honble Union Minister of Home
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
New Delhi
3.. Shri M. Venkaiah Naidu, honble Union Minister of Urban Development
MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Room No. 104-C Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi -110011
4.. HOME SECRETARY, DISASTER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Room No. 113, NORTH BLOCK, Central Secretariat, New Delhi 110001
5.. SECRETARY (UD), Ministry of Urban Development
Room No. 122-C, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi -110011
6. National Disaster Management Authority
NDMA Bhawan, A-1, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029
7. Chief Ministers of All States
8. Administration of Union Territories
9. Geological Survey of India
10. Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, 9,Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi
11. All IITs of India
12. Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee
13. All Electronic and Print Media of India
14. All Associations of Geotechnical & Civil Engineers and Structural Designers of India
15. All reputed companies of Geotechnical Investigation and Pile Foundation of India
16. All Residents Welfare Associations of Earthquake Prone Areas of India

************************************