Mere apprehensions regarding potential environmental hazards cannot justify the refusal of a quarry permit when appropriate clearance has been obtained.

C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------------

W.P.(C) No.23252 of 2025 ------------------------------------

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2026 J U D G M E N T Ext.P8 Order issued by the 5^th respondent-Grama Panchayat, is under challenge in this writ petition. As per Ext.P8, an application preferred by the petitioner for a permit, as well as for a 'No Objection Certificate' for conduct of a quarry has been rejected, stating various reasons, about which further reference will be made hereunder.

2. The first reason stated in Ext.P8 is that the property, having an extent of 0.9882 Hectares, over which quarrying is proposed to be done, is lying as a steep slope and the quarrying, if permitted, would affect the drinking water facility of the persons in the locality, besides causing damage to the Kallada Irrigation Project Canal. As regards this ground, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter is liable to be governed by Section 40 (2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 . Acting upon the provision, the competent authority under the statute has issued Ext.P11, No Objection Certificate. Therefore, the said contention cannot stand, it is the submission made. Insofar as the contention that the drinking water sources would be injuriously affected also, there is no material for the Panchayat to substantiate the same. This Court finds considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and is therefore inclined to discount the said reason.

3. The second reason stated in Ext.P8 is that transportation from the proposed quarry is not possible except through the above referred Kallada Irrigation Project Canal road. According to the Panchayat, the canal road will be damaged, if transportation is permitted. Since it is a canal road, this is also an aspect to be looked into by the competent authority under the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 . It may have to be presumed by virtue of Ext.P11 that the same has also been considered by the authority while granting N.O.C. The said ground also cannot hold good, therefore.

4. The third ground is regarding the possibility of any untoward incident which may befall on persons who are residing in the bottom area, since the property is lying as a steep slope. Here, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this apprehension can only be unfounded, once environmental clearance is issued and the mining plan has been approved by the competent authority, which takes care of the distance rule as well. Ext.P4 is the Environmental Clearance Certificate granted by the 3^rd respondent and Ext.P6 is the communication approving the mining plan. Once E.C. is granted, no further environmental or other hazards can be looked into by the Panchayat, is a contention raised. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Bench decision of this Court in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat v. St.Basil Industries India Private Limited and others [ 2016 (3) KHC 118 ]. Here also, this Court is inclined to endorse the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The fourth objection is that, the permit and No Objection Certificate, if granted, would run contrary to a Government Order. As to how the Government Order is violated is not argued or established before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government Order pertains to the requirement of a 'No Objection Certificate' in terms of Section 40 (2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 . Government Order only speaks about the conditions to be stipulated while granting an N.O.C. in terms of (2). That has already been taken care of, while granting Ext.P11 N.O.C. Hence, that reason will also crumble to the ground.

6. The last