Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K Natarajan, P Krishna Kumar, JJ
Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Biju Abraham – Respondent
WA NO. 1348 OF 2026|WP(C) NO. 8077 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri. Nirmal.S
For the Respondents: Smt. Ashwathi Shyam, Shri. Shyam Padman (Sr.), Shri. C.M. Andrews, Smt. Swathy Sudhir, Smt. S. Anupama, Shri. Sidharth G., Shri. Ram Mohan, Shri. Shimleel Ibrahim T, Smt. A. Sreekala, Sri. K. Mohanakannan
Section 48 of the Dam Safety Act, 2021, possesses an overriding effect over other laws. Consequently, a building permit from a local authority cannot bypass the mandatory requirement of an NOC from the Dam Safety Authority for constructions posing potential risks to dam safety.
Headnote:(A) Dam Safety - No Objection Certificate (NOC) - Requirement of NOC from the Dam Safety Authority for construction near dams is mandatory; a mere recommendation from the Electricity Board or a building permit from a local Panchayath is insufficient to proceed with construction. (Para 10, 12)
(B) Statutory Overriding Effect - Dam Safety Act, 2021 - Section 48 of the Dam Safety Act, 2021 has an overriding effect over all other laws and rules, including the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, ensuring that dam safety takes precedence over local construction permissions. (Para 12)
(C) Interim Orders - Balance of Convenience - Permitting construction before the formal establishment of a regulatory authority may lead to irreversible safety risks or the creation of equity claims by the builder, which would hinder future regularization or demolition. (Para 11, 12)
Issues: Whether a building permit granted by a Panchayath is sufficient to allow construction near a dam in the absence of a mandatory NOC from the Dam Safety Authority under the Dam Safety Act, 2021.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 10th day of August, 2026)
K. NATARAJAN.J
1. This Writ appeal is filed by the Kerala State Electricity Board and the Assistant Engineer seeking to set aside the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. No. 2/2025 in W.P.(C) No. 8077/2025 dated 03.11.2025.
2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel, Adv. Shyam Padman, instructed by Adv. Ram Mohan, for the writ petitioner/respondent No.1, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondent No.2, and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.
3. The case of the appellants is that the first respondent filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the appellants to issue an NOC for constructing a building near the Banasura Sagar Dam. The writ petitioner contended that he had obtained building permission from the Panchayath as well as a recommendation from the very same appellant authorities. However, while the construction was in progress, the third respondent Panchayath, acting on the directions of the appellants, stopped the construction. Therefore, the writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge of this Court seeking appropriate directions.
4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order in I.A. No. 2/2025 permitting the writ petitioner to proceed with the construction in accordance with Ext. P2 building permit granted by the Panchayath and the revised approved plan, Ext. P4, subject to the result of the writ petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this Court challenging the same.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the appellants are the Electricity Board, which is managing the dam and carrying out electricity-related activities. Though they had issued a recommendation for granting the NOC, no such NOC has been obtained by the writ petitioner. Therefore, permitting the writ petitioner to proceed with the construction without obtaining the NOC is improper. It is also contended that there are 18 other persons who have obtained building permits, but they have not commenced construction. If construction is permitted, it would be very difficult in future to remove such constructions. According to the appellants, the construction poses a serious threat to the safety of the dam and is in violation of the provisions of the Dam Safety Act. Therefore, until the writ petition is finally disposed of, no interim order permitting the construction ought to have been passed. Hence, the appellants prayed for setting aside the said order.
6. Per contra, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 seriously opposed the appeal and contended that they had obtained the building permit from the Panchayath and also a recommendation from the Kerala State Electricity Board for the issuance of an NOC by the Dam Safety Authority. However, no Dam Safety Authority has yet been established from whom such permission could be obtained. Though the proposed Dam Safety Authority has been impleaded as respondent No.4, it has not yet been constituted. Therefore, the writ petitioner is unable to obtain any permission from the said authority.
7. On the other hand, it was contended that the very same appellants had already recommended the construction subject to certain conditions. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the Village Panchayath had granted permission for the construction. The writ petitioner was required to produce the NOC obtained from the competent authority after completion of the construction. However, the construction has not yet been completed. In such circumstances, production of the NOC is not required at this stage for proceeding with the construction. Since no such authority is in existence, the question of
