The petitioners are aggrieved with the blasting operations carried on for the purpose of the construction of a National Highway, which according to the petitioners, causes damage to the residences near to the work-site. The petitioners also contend that their residences are within 50 meters from the blasting site; which is within the prohibited distance of 100 meters, as prescribed by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (PCB), for quarries. The objection is with respect to the quarrying operations carried on without the necessary sanctions and permits as also the refusal to comply with the minimum safety standards insisted upon by the various enactments. The grievance is also of the large-scale blasting done with electronic detonators, without notice and frequently too, shaking the very foundations of the residences of the petitioners, causing untold misery to their life and damage to property.

2. The learned Counsel for the 7th respondent, who is the contractor has produced permissions and sanctions acquired from the various authorities. Ext.R7(a) is the proceedings of the Additional District Magistrate, Thrissur, granting permission to carry on the drilling and blasting works for the six-lane work of Wadakkanchery - Thrissur NH 47, on certain conditions stipulated. Ext. R7(b) is the proceedings of the District Collector, Palakkad which is specifically pointed out to contend that the District Collector had made inquiries with all the departments and permitted the carrying on of operations by the 7th respondent. Specific reference is made to paragraph 3, wherein the Geologist, Palakkad has also been called upon to report any objection, which obviously has not been raised. In such circumstance, the NOC's, by the revenue and administrative head, of both the Districts, where the work is now progressing are deemed to have been issued on the consent of all departments within the respective districts. Ext.R7(c) is the explosives licence issued by the Controller of Explosives and Ext.R7(d)&(e) are the Short-firer's permit/certificate, to individuals said to be in the employment of the 7th respondent, who allegedly carry on the blasting operations.

3. The National Highway Authority also appears through Counsel and submits that the blasting operations are permitted as per the "Specifications for Road and Bridge Works issued by the Ministry of Shipping, Road, Transport and Highways"(Specifications of MOSRT & H), which stipulation is found under the heading 302. 'Blasting Operations'. The agreement entered into with the 7th respondent contractor permits such blasting operations to be carried on with the necessary consent and sanctions as required under the various enactments, is the contention raised. The PCB has also submitted that, though for quarrying and mining, a consent to establish and operate issued from the PCB, is mandatory, the same is not required for purposes other than quarry operations. The learned Counsel for the 7th respondent would also stress on the fact that if there is an interdiction made of the blasting operations, then there would be stoppage of the National Highway work, which would definitely not be in the national interest. It is also pointed out that the petitioners are persons, who had been granted compensation in 2013, when works were carried out in the very same site. As of now, it is also submitted that a Committee has been formed headed by the Additional District Magistrate and it is under supervision of that Committee, the operations are being carried on.

4. At the outset it is to be emphasized that the fact that the petitioners had obtained compensation once would not deter them from raising a further claim, on damage being caused subsequently due only for reason of the continuing work of the contractor. This Court has to look at whether the work carried on is with the requisite sanctions and permits, when again, a complaint is raised. Even when there are available all requisite sanctions, t