K SASIDHARAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this writ petition filed by a resident of Desamangalam Grama Panchayat is to quash Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate issued by the District Collector, Thrissur and Ext.P4 Consent issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the 5th respondent to establish a quarry. THE petitioner has also prayed that the Center for Earth Science and Studies, Trivandrum or any other competent agency may be directed to assess the damage caused by the 5th respondent to the environment. THE brief facts of the case are as follows.

(2.) THE 5th respondent herein submitted an application dated 11.5.2004 to the District Collector, Thrissur for the grant of a No Objection Certificate under rule 155 of the Explosives Rules, 1983. THE said application was rejected by order passed on 1.3.2007. THE 5th respondent thereupon filed W.P(C)No.16137 of 2007 in this Court. That writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty with the 5th respondent to challenge the order rejecting his application in appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner. THE 5th respondent thereupon filed an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner under rule 169(4) of the Explosives Rules. By Ext.P1 order passed on 16.10.2007 after notice to and hearing the 5th respondent, the Desamangalam Grama Panchayat and the Janakeeya Karma Samithi, Desamangalam, represented by its Secretary, the Land Revenue Commissioner allowed the appeal and directed the District Collector, Thrissur to issue the No Objection Certificate subject to the safety measures proposed by the Center for Earth Science and Studies, hereinafter referred to as the "CESS" for short. THE Land Revenue Commissioner also directed the District Collector to set up a Local Monitoring Committee to ensure that the licensee continues to comply with the conditions under which the No Objection Certificate is issued. THE District Collector, Thrissur thereafter issued Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate in order to enable the 5th respondent to get an explosives licence under the Explosives Act, 1983 and the rules framed thereunder. As directed by the Land Revenue Commissioner in Ext.P1 order, the District Collector also constituted a Local Monitoring Committee consisting of the Assistant Geologist, Thrissur, the member representing the Ward where the quarry is situated and the Village Officer, Desamangalam Village, by Ext.P3 order dated 28.11.2007. Even earlier on 2.6.2004 the Kerala State Pollution Control Board had issued Ext.P4 consent to the 5th respondent to establish a stone crusher unit subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. THE grant of the No Objection Certificate to the 5th respondent was the subject matter of challenge in W.P(C) No.27403 of 2005, W.P(C)No.20230 of 2006 and W.P(C)No.6623 of 2008. By Ext.R5(a) judgment delivered on 30.5.2008 the writ petitions were dismissed upholding the grant of the No Objection Certificate. One among the petitioners therein filed W.A.No.1489 of 2008 and the said appeal was dismissed by Ext.R5(b) judgment delivered on 16.7.2008. THEreupon the 5th respondent commenced the quarrying operations. Later, the petitioner sent Ext.P5 representation dated 25.8.2009 to the District Collector, Thrissur alleging that the 5th respondent is conducting quarrying operations in violation of the conditions stipulated in the No Objection Certificate and that the Local Monitoring Committee constituted by the District Collector has not taken any action. In that petition the petitioner also requested the District Collector to conduct a surprise inspection and to prevent further quarrying. This writ petition is filed contending that the 5th respondent is running the quarry in an area which is prone to seismic activity and that the continued functioning of the quarry will cause serious environmental imbalance thereby causing danger to the public. THE petitioner also contends that the 5th respondent does not have a licence to run the quarry and the Local Monitoring Committee has not so far inspected the quarry and submitted a report. On these grounds the petitioner also challenges the No Objection Certificate issued by the District Collector and the consent to conduct quarrying operations issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.

(3.) I heard Sri.P.K.Ibrahim, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.K.R.Deepa, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned standing counsel appearing for Desamangalam Grama Panchayat and Sri.V.Chithambaresh , learned Senior Advocate appearing for the 5th respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from Ext.R5(a) and R5(b) judgments of the Court that the challenge to Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate granted by the District Collector, Thrissur to the 5th respondent was repelled by this Court. Though the petitioner is not a party to Exts.R5(a) and R5(b) judgments, in view of the findings and observations therein, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge Ext.P2. This Court has in Ext.R5(a) judgment held that the blasting of rock with low intensity explosives will not trigger an earthquake. Such an observation was made relying on the observations and findings recorded by the Land Revenue Commissioner in Ext.P1 order, which in turn was passed on the basis of the recommendations of the CESS. This Court had in Ext.R5(a) judgment also considered the effect which the quarrying operations will have in the locality. It was held that as the quarrying operations are being conducted in a large tract of land, the apprehension expressed by the petitioners in the writ petitions is misplaced and without any basis. The judgment of the learned single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench in appeal. The Division Bench noticed that the CESS had only stressed the need for monitoring the operations. In the light of the binding decisions of this Court evidenced by Exts.R5(a) and R5(b) I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot successfully challenge Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate.