Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 81306
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OTTAPPALAM GRANITES (P) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/MAGISTRATE – Respondent
WP(C) 5009/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022/24TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 5009 OF 2021 PETITIONER:
OTTAPPALAM GRANITES (P) LTD., VI/751, KALLENS SHOPPING CENTRE, PUKATTUPADY, EDATHALA P.O, ERNAKULAM - 683561, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.FINIX VARGHESE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.DENU JOSEPH SRI.BIBIN BABU RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD – 678001.
2 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD – 678001.
3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, C-2, IIIRD FLOOR, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, C.S.E.Z. POST, KAKKANAD, KOCHI – 682037.
4 LAKKIDY PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANGALAM P.O, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679301, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
5 SURESH BABU, M.P. HOUSE, MULANJOOR POST, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679511.
6 VIJAYA GOVINDAN, MULLAPULLYMADOM, MULANJOOR POST, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679511.
7 NARAYANAN T., THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MULANJOOR POST, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679511.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.P.JAYARAM SRI.K.R.SANTHOSH KUMAR SRI.MANU S., ASG OF INDIA SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.5009 of 2021 `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2022
J U D G M E N T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Petitioner is a Company engaged in granite quarrying business. The petitioner holds 5.7 Hectares of property in Lakkidy Perur-1 Village of Palakkad District. The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P8 order of the 2nd respondent-Additional District Magistrate rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for NOC to obtain Explosives Licence.
2. In the year 2015, the petitioner, with an intention to apply for a quarrying lease, approached the 1st respondent-District Collector seeking NOC under Rule 102 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 for establishing a Magazine for storage of explosives. The application was rejected. The petitioner did not pursue the said application since the application was submitted without prior approval under Rule
101 of the Explosives Rules.
3. The petitioner later obtained Ext.P1 approval from the 3rd respondent-Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives for the proposed possession for use of explosives from a Magazine. Ext.P1 approval was on condition that the petitioner shall submit NOC and endorsed plan. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P2 application to the 1st respondent for grant of NOC under Rule 113 of the Explosives Rules,2008.
4. The 1st respondent sent Ext.P3 letter to the Secretary to the 4th respondent-Panchayat asking whether the Panchayat has any objection in issuing NOC. The Secretary informed the 1st respondent that the Council on 31.03.2017 had decided not to give NOC and that the Council meeting scheduled to be held on 27.06.2018, will again consider the issue.
5. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P6 letter requiring the petitioner to produce Letter of Intent from the Geology Department and Environmental Clearance Certificate. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 explanation pointing out that those documents are not necessary at this stage as the application is only for NOC for Explosives Licence.
6. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P8 order dated 16.11.2020 rejecting the application for NOC. The 2nd respondent has rejected the application on the ground that local residents have strongly opposed establishment of quarry and that local residents have expressed apprehension that if quarrying is permitted, it will adversely affect agricultural activities and life and property of residents in the valley. Ext.P8 further stated that the petitioner has not produced any documents to controvert the anxiety and hence it has to be held that the public interest is not protec
