IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 24203 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE MANAGER, PRESENTATION CONVENT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, VELLIKULANGARA, (VIA) KODAKARA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY MR. KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR. TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT (A ) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, TRICHUR- 680 002 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, TRICHUR. 4. M/S. BLUE MOUNTAIN GRANTES, VELLIKULANGARA P.O., TRICHUR- 680 693, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, MATHEW M.PATHROSE 5. THE SECRETARY, MATTATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MATTATHOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 692 W.P.(C). NO.24203/2008-F: *ADDL.R6. THE CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. *ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 16/09/08 IN I.A. 11580/08. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER, R2 & R3 BY ADV. MR.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOARD, R4 BY MR.MATHAI M PAIKADAY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR. M.K.ABOOBACKER, R5 BY ADV. MR. M.R.VENUGOPAL, SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN, R6 BY MR. V.KRISHNA MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2009, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 32992/ 2008 & CONNECTED CASES,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.24203/2008-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 02/03/2007 ISSUED TO THE HEADMISTRESS OF PETITIONER'S SCHOOL. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 07/03/2007 OF C.I. OF POLICE, PUTHUKKAD. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 11/02/2008 TO THE PRESIDENT OF MATTATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 10/05/2007 ISSUED FROM THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/06/2007 FROM THE HEADMISTRESS OF PETITIONER'S SCHOOL. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 16/05/2007 ISSUED FROM THE R.3. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 05/11/2007 FROM THE HEADMISTRESS OF PETITIONER'S SCHOOL. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 10/04/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.10932/08 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DT. 18/07/2008 TO THE R.4. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 04/04/2007 ISSUED FROM THE R.3. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE CONDITIONS ATTACHED WITH THE CONSENT GIVEN TO R.4. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR DT. 23/05/2008. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 21/05/2008 FROM THE HEADMISTRESS OF PETITIONER'S SCHOOL BEFORE THE ADM. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 23/05/2008 FILED BY THE -DO- BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 30/08/2008 ISSUED FROM THE DFO, CHALAKUDY. EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/11/06 ISSUED FROM THE SECRETARY, MATTATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 18/05/07 OF -DO-. W.P.(C). NO. 24203/2008-F: EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24/09/07 FROM THE HEADMISTRESS AND PTA. EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 25/09/07 BY R.4. EXT.P.20: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. NIL TO THE GEOLOGIST. EXT.P.21: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 06/10/07. EXT.P.22: COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 31/10/2006 TO THE DIST. COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. EXT.P.23: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 15/07/2008 TO THE RDO, TRICHUR. EXT.P.24: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DT. 21/08/2008 FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.25: COPY OF THE APPEAL DT. 21/08/08 OF -DO-. EXT.P.26: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 22/08/08 FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.27: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/08/08 FROM THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.28: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/08/2008 FROM THE GOVT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO:PCB/TAC/WP/236/2006 DD. 13/06/2007. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.PCB/TAC/WP/236/2006 DTD. 18/10/2006. EXT.R3.C: COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DTD. 14/5/2007. EXT.R3.D: COPY OF THE REVISED CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DTD. 16/05/2007. EXT.R3.E: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 08/04/2008. EXT.R3.F: COPY OF THE REPORT. EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.17782 OF 2008 DTD. 24/07/2008. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE CONSENT DTD. 16/11/2006 ISSUED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 18/11/2006 OF THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE LICENCE IN FORM NO. 22 OF THE EXPLOSIVE RULES ISSUED BY LICENCING AUTHORITY. EXT.R4.E: COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DTD. 09/07/2007 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY. W.P.(C). NO. 24203/2008-F: EXT.R4.F: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 04/04/2007. EXT.R4.G: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 16/05/2007. EXT.R4.H: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DTD.18/05/07 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.R4.I: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 20/08/2007 IN W.P.(C).20026/2007. EXT.R4.J: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/10/2007. EXT.R4.K: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 11/02/2008. EXT.R4.L: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 22/02/2008. EXT.R4.M: COPY OF THE CONSENT DTD. 17/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE CONVENOR OF THE SAMITHY. EXT.R4.N: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).10932/08 DTD. 10/04/2008 ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.R4.O: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT AUTHORITY. EXT.R4.P: COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 8073/08 ON 24/06/08. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ====================== W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 ====================== Dated, this the 6th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The sum and substance of these three writ petitions running to hundreds of pages including counter affidavits, additional counter affidavits, various interlocutory applications etc. can be extracted as given below:- a) Whether Exhibit P9 'consent to operate' (in W.P.(C) No.24302 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.25602 of 2008) is liable to be acted upon by the Panchayath for issuance of the requisite licence in compliance with the Judgment dated 24-7-2008 in W.P.(C) No.17782 of 2008 or not? (b) Whether Exhibit P9 consent issued by the competent authority under the Explosives Act, 1884 and the Explosives Rules, 1983 is liable to treated as a “valid licence” for being W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:2:- considered by the Panchayath in connection with the licence to be issued for operating the unit under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or not?. 2. The case putforth by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.24203 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.25602 of 2008 is more or less similar. The former one is filed by the Manager of the School; whereas the latter has been filed by the Parent- Teachers Association and two others. The learned counsel for the petitioner School submitted that the reliefs prayed for in the earlier O.P. are only confined to the challenge raised against Exhibit P9 'consent to operate' given by the Pollution Control Board. 3. With regard to the sequence of events, it is seen that the fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.24203 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.25602 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “applicant” for the convenience of reference in all the three W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:3:- cases) who is stated as the owner of the property in Sy.No.1982 of Vellikulangara Village in Mukundapuram Taluk, with intend to start a 'Crusher Unit' and a 'Quarry', approached the statutory authorities for obtaining the requisite NOC/Licence, reportedly after availing/arranging necessary funds from different sources including Public Sector Banks by way of loans and submitted an application before the Pollution Control Board for 'consent to establish' the Unit. 4. It is relevant to note at this juncture, that “three level monitoring system” is contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Firstly, the concerned party will have to satisfy the authority as to the “infrastructure” before getting the “consent to establish” the Unit. After obtaining such 'consent to establish', the applicant has to comply with the various conditions/requirements as stipulated by the Pollution Control Board, after which alone will they be W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:4:- issued the “consent to operate” the Unit. Even after obtaining the “consent to operate” and on getting the requisite sanction from the concerned Local authority, the party has necessarily to satisfy the Pollution Control Board that their activities are strictly in conformity with the norms prescribed by the Pollution Control Board, failing which it is for the Pollution Control Board, invoking such powers as specified under statute, to bring them to the proper track and on failure, it is very much open to cancel or revoke the Licence already granted. 5. In the instant case, the applicant, on satisfying the requisite elements, was given the 'consent to establish' the Unit as borne by Exhibit R4(b) dated 16-11- 2006 issued by the Pollution Control Board. Subsequently, taking note of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Panchayath passed a resolution to give 'consent to establish' the Unit as evident from Exhibit R4(c). When the applicant was proceeding with further steps to establish the W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:5:- Unit on the basis of Exhibits R4(b) and R4(c), the Pollution Control Board intercepted the activities on the basis of some complaints stated as obtained from different corners including the petitioner's School and issued Exhibit R4(f) proceedings dated 4-4-2007 directing to stop all the construction activities with immediate effect. 6. While so, the applicant was granted the necessary Licence by the authorities under the Explosive Rules, 1983 for possessing and using the explosives in connection with the operation of the Quarry, as borne by Exhibit R4(d) dated 16.4.2007. Various discussions, meetings and negotiations followed and upon satisfying the Pollution Control Board as to the true state of affairs, they withdrew Exhibit R4(f) 'stop-memo' and vide Exhibit R4(g) proceedings dated 16-5-2007 permitted the applicant to proceed with the activities to 'establish the Unit' based on Exhibit R4(b) consent, subject to some additional conditions incorporated therein. W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:6:- 7. In the meanwhile, the Panchayath, taking note of Exhibit R4(f) dated 4-4-2007 had issued a 'stop memo' asking the applicant to keep all the construction activities in abeyance vide Exhibit R4(h) proceedings dated 18-5-2007 based on the resolution taken in this regard on 15-5-2007. But since Exhibit R4(f) 'stop-memo' issued by the Pollution Control Board was already withdrawn vide Exhibit R4(g) dated 16-5-2007, the applicant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20026 of 2007 praying for a direction to be issued to the Panchayath to act upon Exhibit R4(g) and to permit them to complete the work. It was also pointed out before this Court that, according to the applicant, they had obtained all the requisite certificates such as NOC from the Pollution Control Board, Additional District Magistrate, Explosives Department, Geology Department etc. The petitioner school also got impleaded in the above writ petition as additional fifth respondent. After hearing all the parties, this Court vide Exhibit R4(i) Judgment directed the W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:7:- Panchayath to consider the matter and finalise the proceedings as specified. 8. Pursuant to the above verdict, in spite of the withdrawal of the stop-memo issued by the Pollution Control Board, the Panchayath declined the request of the applicant as per Exhibit R4(j) dated 6-10-2007. But later, the Panchayath convened a meeting of the applicant and people of the locality and as suggested by the Panchayath, steps were taken to assess the damage caused, if any, to the buildings in the locality; for which two separate Engineers were deputed, one at the instance of the Panchayath and other at the instance of the applicant, who submitted their reports as Exhibit R4(k) and R4(l) respectively. It is the stand of the applicant that, even though the damage was not caused because of their activities, particularly when the Units were yet to be operated, they decided to 'purchase peace' and accordingly, the amounts shown as payable by the Engineer/Loss assessor engaged at the instance of the W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:8:- Panchayath were disbursed to the parties concerned, against proper receipts like Exhibit R4(m). However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner school was never amenable to such course, particularly since their grievance was against establishment of the Crusher Unit/Quarry in the concerned property, which otherwise was to affect the lives of the Teachers, Staff and Students of the School; besides causing further damage to the buildings. 9. After completing the works in setting up the Unit, the applicant approached the Pollution Control Board for “consent to operate” the Unit. Since the matter was being delayed, the applicant approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.10932 of 2008 for appropriate reliefs. After hearing both the sides (including the Pollution Control Board and the Panchayath), this Court disposed of the writ petition vide Exhibit R4(n) Judgment dated 10-4-2008 directing the Pollution Control Board to inspect the premises and on W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:9:- satisfaction as to compliance with the conditions imposed, and if there was no impediment for issuing the 'consent to establish' (presumably a mistake as “consent to operate” was the issue involved) to grant the 'consent to operate' and directed the Panchayath to consider the application for the requisite licence to be given by the Panchayath on the basis of the above proceedings. 10. While so, the Additional District Magistrate (A.D.M.), Thrissur issued a notice to the applicant asking to show cause, why the NOC forwarded to the Controller of Explosives shall not be withdrawn, instructing the applicant to attend a meeting scheduled in this regard. The meeting convened by the A.D.M. appears to be on the basis of a complaint preferred by the petitioner. After hearing, the A.D.M. passed Exhibit R4(o) dated 23-5-2008 wherein it was observed that the request of the petitioners was to avoid electric detonators and to reduce the capacity of the Crusher to 500 tonnes. Taking note of the fact that the W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:10:- Quarry was yet to be started, the parties were directed to approach the Panchayath for further steps in this regard, particularly in view of the proposed constitution of a Monitoring Committee. However, the applicant chose to challenge the said proceedings in W.P.(C) No.17782 of 2008. It is seen that the petitioner herein, though was not originally impleaded as a respondent to the above proceedings, later got impleaded as the additional third respondent. During the course of hearing W.P.(C) No.17782 of 2008, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Pollution Control Board, after filing the writ petition, had issued the necessary 'Consent to Operate' the Unit and that the Panchayath was to finalise the matter, as already directed by Exhibit R4(n). Accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed of vide Exhibit R4(p) Judgment, directing the Panchayath to consider the application preferred by the applicant and to pass final orders thereon with notice to the additional third respondent (petitioner herein) and others W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:11:- within the time limit of four months as specified therein. 11. After the disposal of W.P.(C) No.17782 of 2008, the petitioner approached this Court, by filing a review petition in W.P.(C) No.10932 of 2008 stating that much prejudice was caused to the petitioner for having passed the said verdict without impleading her in the party array. After hearing, this Court as per order dated 22-10-2008 observed that the direction was only to consider the matter by the Panchayath and further that the grievance as to the loss of opportunity of hearing stood substantially redressed in view of the Judgment dated 24-7-2008 in W.P.(C) No.17782 of 2008, whereby the Panchayath was directed to finalise the proceedings only after hearing the petitioner as well. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.24203 of 2008 challenging the validity of Exhibit P9 'Consent to Operate' the Unit issued by the Pollution Control Board and obtained an interim order of stay, pursuant to which the proceedings directed to be finalised W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:12:- by the Panchayath are stated as kept in abeyance. 12. With regard to the challenge against Exhibit P9, the main grievance of the petitioner is that her School is situated very close to the applicant's Unit and that operation of the Unit will cause much adverse consequences by way of damage to the building and also in terms of pollution, making the life of the teachers, students and local public miserable. The petitioner also submits that the Unit of the applicant is situated with much proximity to the Forest area and that the sanction to operate the Unit will definitely spoil the 'flora and fauna', adversely affecting the wild life; particularly the forest being a 'Conservation Reserve Tiger Forest'. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the operation of the Unit will lead to scarcity of drinking water in the locality and further that it will be against the terms of the National Minor Mineral Policy 1993; thus affecting the public at large as well. W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:13:- 13. With regard to the magnitude of challenge the subject matter in the present writ petitions is rather to be confined to the relative rights and liabilities between the petitioner and that of the applicant. In other words, the larger questions involving public interest are not supposed to be dealt with by this Court, not being a “Public Interest Litigation”. Whether the applicant is entitled to obtain Exhibit P9 'consent to operate' issued by the Pollution Control Board; whether infringement of any statutory prescription is brought to light or whether the conditions prescribed by the statutory authorities are simply thrown to wind by the applicant/beneficiary etc. are the questions to be considered while examining the scope of Exhibit P9. But then, there is an effective alternative remedy for the petitioner to have it challenged by way of Appeal as provided under the Statute - as pointed out by the Pollution Control Board in their counter affidavit. Such 'fact adjudication' can only be on the basis of the evidence to be W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:14:- adduced; which is not possible in a writ petition filed before this Court invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Another reason for declining interference in W.P. (C) No.24203 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.32992 of 2008 is that the prohibited distance is only 50 to 100 metres (as the case may be) as discernible from Exhibits R3(a) and R3(b) Circulars issued by the Pollution Control Board. It is stated that Exhibit R3(c) is the Report submitted by the Chief Environmental Engineer, where the distance between the petitioner's school and the Unit is shown as 629 metres. It has been stated by the Chief Environmental Engineer in Exhibit R3(c) that, it cannot be said that damages have occurred to the building of the petitioner's school because of the operation of the Unit of the applicant, in view of the distance noted above; simultaneously adding that, for the very same reason, no damage could be caused to the “Kozhimuttapara” as alleged by the petitioner. The W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:15:- petitioner has not chosen to challenge Exhibits R3(a) and (b) Circulars issued by the Pollution Control Board or the observations made by the Chief Environmental Engineer as reported in Exhibit R3(c). 15. Yet another aspect pointed out by the senior counsel for the applicant is that, according to the applicant, W.P.(C) No.24203 of 2008 can only be regarded as “suit in disguise” for damages, in so far as the actual intent and desire of the petitioner would be explicitly clear from paragraph 4 of the reply affidavit dated 13-9-2008 filed by the petitioner and also from prayer 'g' of the amended writ petition, which are extracted below for convenience of reference:- Paragraph 4:- If so, fourth respondent can't start operation of even the Crusher before an approved authority finds out the actual damage incurred to petitioner due to fourth respondent, and till fourth respondent pays it to petitioner”. “g. To prohibit 4th respondent from operating their quarry/crusher till an expert authority appointed by Government decides the loss suffered by petitioner due to the blasting done by 4th respondent and till that amount is paid by the 4th respondent.” W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:16:- As submitted by the applicant, since the operation/production is yet to be started, for want of necessary licence to be issued by the Panchayat, the apprehension of the petitioner as to the damage likely to be caused, if permission to operate is given is rather pre- mature; which is more so when the petitioner is very much entitled to pursue the remedy before the statutory authorities, if any violation of the prescribed conditions, norms, orders or circulars is noticed. On such an event, it is for the petitioner to substantiate the damage as well, if any caused because of the activities conducted by the applicant and as to the extent of damages payable by pursing appropriate remedies before the appropriate Forum/Civil Court. 16. With regard to the challenge raised in W.P.(C) No.32992 of 2008 against Ext.P9 Quarry licence given to the applicant by the authority under the Explosives Act and Rules, the petitioner has raised serious attack for non- W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:17:- compliance of the relevant rules including Rule 156(4). The main contention of the petitioner is that the licence was sought for and proceedings were pursued in respect of a different property (having Sy.No.'1892') whereas the No Objection Certificate issued by the Additional District Magistrate and Ext.P9 licence issued by the statutory authority were in respect of the property comprised in Sy.No.'1982'. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application submitted by the applicant in Form 5, the subsequent proceedings in Form 17/Form 18, the site plan and paper publication of the notice contemplated under Rule 156 (4) etc. are pertaining to the property comprised in Sy.No.1892 and not with regard to the property in Sy.No.1982 - as shown in Ext.P9 licence. The learned counsel submits that since the application, site plan and other relevant proceedings are defective, there is no valid application; no valid site plan and hence, there cannot be any valid licence as well. W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:18:- 17. As against the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is submitted by the applicant (6th respondent in W.P.(C) No.32992 of 2008) that the case put forth by the petitioner, trying to capitalize the mistake in Survey Number, does not hold any water at all. So also is the position with regard to the wild allegations of malpractices in the office of the departmental authorities and as to the collusion with the applicant in this regard. With regard to the notice in respect of the Survey Number as 1892 and subsequently in giving NOC leading to Ext.P9 licence showing the actual Sy.No. as 1982, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there was no dispute with the identity of the property concerned till filing of the present Writ Petition; that absolutely no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in this regard; that the allegations and apprehension as to the damage caused or likely to be caused on operating the Unit of the applicant W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:19:- are thoroughly wrong and misconceived; that the petitioner had in fact participated in the meeting convened by the Additional District Magistrate, as evident from Ext.R4(j) (Ext.R4(o) in W.P.(C) No. 24203 of 2008) and above all that Ext.P9 licence having been granted only in respect of a 'small quantity' of 75 Kgs of explosives, compliance with Rule 157 alone is sufficient, since Rule 156 is not at all attracted. 3 18. Referring to Exts.P18(a) and (b) proceedings (the request and application in Form No.5 submitted by the applicant) wherein the survey number has been wrongly shown as '1892' it is pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the wrong citation of the survey number has got serious impact with regard to the notice contemplated under Rule 156(4) and as to the rights of the interested parties to prefer objections. Since the proceedings were finalised by the Addl. District Magistrate leading to issuance of the No Objection Certificate without giving W.P.(C) Nos.24203, 25602 & 32992 of 2008 -:20:- proper notice (as the paper publication did not advert to the correct survey number as '1982' but for wrongly describing the survey number as