The court reinforced that a N.O.C under Section 40(2) cannot be denied based on unfounded claims of environmental concern when expert assessments indicate compliance with safety standards.

JUDGMENT :

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P22 Order of the 3^rd respondent Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, as per which, an N.O.C sought for by the petitioner in terms of Section 40 (2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 2003, has been rejected, citing three specific reasons about which detailed reference will be made herebelow.

2. Heard Sri.Jobi Jose Kondody learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Davis P.I, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, Sri.Georgekutty Mathew, learned Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. When the matter was practically heard in full, an impleading petition was filed at the instance of the additional 7^th respondent. The same was allowed. Heard Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Sri.Millu Dandapani, on behalf of the additional 7^th respondent. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) was also subsequently impleaded as Additional 8^th respondent and Sri.M.P Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel was heard on its behalf.

3. Before addressing the relative merit of Ext.P22, the things which transpired until the issuance of Ext.P22 has to be taken note of. The petitioner wanted to conduct business in quarrying in the subject site, for which Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance was issued by the SEIAA. Ext.P2 is the Consent to Operate issued by the Pollution Control Board; Ext.P3, the LE-3 licence issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives; Ext.P5, the trade licence issued by the Grama Panchayat concerned; and Ext.P6 is the quarrying permit issued by the Geologist. On the premise that Ext.P6 permit could not be acted upon because of the delay in issuing Ext.P5, the petitioner sought for extension of Ext.P6 quarrying permit, which was allowed vide Ext.P7.

4. A Writ Petition was filed at the instance of the 5^th respondent, along with certain others, pointing out that the petitioner is conducting quarrying operations without a ‘No Objection Certificate’ under Section 40 (2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 2003’, for brevity). The litigation culminated in Ext.P8 judgment directing the authorities to ensure that the petitioner complies with the requirements of (2) of the Act 2003, and also, to consider petitioner’s representation in this regard. The petitioner carried a Writ Appeal, which resulted in Ext.P9 interim 0rder, wherein the Division Bench directed constitution of an Expert Committee to study the effect of blasting, while carrying out quarrying works. The committee conducted such study and placed a report vide Ext.P11 before the Division Bench. In Ext.P11 report, the Expert Committee found that, during blasting, no noticeable vibrations or impacts near the water tanks were observed manually. It was also indicated in Ext.P11 that the impact of blasting on tanks would depend upon the age of tanks, structural strength, blast intensity etc., which can be analyzed only with the assistance of persons having expertise in the field and with necessary equipments. The name of one such expert, namely the National Institute of Rock Mechanics, Bengaluru, was also suggested. The report was placed before the Division Bench, which found that the report is grossly dis- satisfactory and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the 3^rd respondent herein, vide Ext.P17 interim Order. Thereafter, the Writ Appeal was disposed of vide Ext.