The court upheld excavation permits after assessing no immediate threat, indicating that concerns must be raised with appropriate authorities if issues persist.

JUDGMENT In both these Writ Petitions, the respective petitioners seek to prevent excavation activities being conducted by the same entity, arraigned as respondent No.9 in W.P.(C).No.15526/2025 and respondent no.8 in W.P.(C).No.17639/2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the official respondents and learned counsel for the party respondent in both the Writ Petitions.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that excavation activity is going on in a hill, which causes a serious threat to the petitioners, who are residing nearby the hill. Some are residing on the top of the hill, who would also share the same anxiety. Learned counsel would submit that there is every chance of a disaster and hence applications have been filed before the Disaster Management Authority, vide Ext.P3 in W.P.(C).No.17639/2025 and Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No.15526/2025. Learned counsel would submit that the permit granted is illegal; and even when permit is granted, if the activities are causing potential threat to the public in the form of a man - made disaster, the Disaster Management Authority is duty bound to act, is the submission.

4. The above submissions were seriously opposed by the learned Government Pleader by pointing out that the threat, if any, on account of the activities of the party respondent has been assessed by a joint team consisting of the Revenue, Mining, Geology and Pollution Control Board, as could be seen from Annexure R3 (a) proceedings of the District Collector. The above inspection conducted by the Expert Appraisal Committee constituted, in terms of S.O.No.1223(E) dated 17.03.2025, revealed no potential threat, as sought to be espoused by the petitioners. That apart, Annexure R3(a) stipulates certain conditions and permit was granted only based on the same. Learned Government Pleader would invite the attention of this Court to paragraph no.8 of the affidavit sworn to by the 3rd respondent/Geologist. Averments in paragraph 8 also speak of yet another inspection jointly conducted by the Tahsildar and the Geologist, which would ensure that the sourcing is conducted within the permitted area. Certain violations of the condition was notified and the same were being corrected, is the content of paragraph no.8 of the affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that they are conducting activities as permitted by law only and there is no room for any apprehension of a disaster. Learned counsel would submit that excavation activity is in connection with a linear project, for which the distance criteria in terms of the K.M.M.C. Rules is not applicable. The submission was made in answer to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there exists a water tank, which is located 5.4 meters away from the proposed site, as depicted in paragraph no.8 of the affidavit sworn to by the 3^rd respondent/Geologist.

6. Having heard the respective counsel, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the activities of the party respondents. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, necessary inspection and study has been conducted by the Expert Appraisal Committee and necessary safeguards have been incorporated to Annexure R3(a). The allegation of sourcing beyond the permitted area has been negated in a joint inspection conducted by the Geologist and Tahsildar, as could be seen from paragraph no.8 of the affidavit. Keeping aloof the possibility of the disaster, if the petitioners maintain that the distance rule in terms of the existing water tank has been violated, it is up to them to carry the grievance before the competent Authority.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that an application has been filed before the 1^st respondent/District Collector, who is the Chairman of the Disaster Management Authority, produced at Ext.P1 in W.P. (C).No.17639/2025. It will be open for the 1^st respondent/District Collector to cons