IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 27403 of 2005(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.K. NANU, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. P. RAMAN NAIR, AMBATTU HOUSE, P.O. DESAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-679 532. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM SMT.K.P.AMBIKA SMT.ASHIRA MOHAMED ASHROF SRI.K.K.ASHKAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEMELY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND GENERAL MANAGER, NAMELY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, MADRAS. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 6. DESAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DESAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. M.D. BABY, B.P. ASSOCIATES, MADAPPILLY HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. ADDL. 8. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM 33 ADDL. R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON IA 2833/08 DATED 12.3.2008 R6 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA R1 TO R3 & R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. TEKCHAND R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA R7 BY ADVS. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) SRI.SAJU.S.A 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 20230 OF 2006 WPC NO. 6623 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 3 APPENDIX (WPC 27403/05) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CLEARANCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.11.2004 EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 12.1.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 3222 OF 2005 H DATED 16.6.2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED 12.8.05 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.G.O.(Rt) NO. 825/05/ID DATED 24.8.05 EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE STUDY REPORT PUBLISHED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR BY THE CENTER FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.5.2004 EXT.P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.12 PASSED ON 31.7.2004 IN RESPECT OF THE MENTAL CRUSHER UNIT OF M/S. B.P. ASSOCIATES. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. DB-462/01 DATED 30.12.04 OF THE ASST. EXE. ENGINEER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. 1128/C2/TDO/04 DATED 31.8.04 OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 PHOTOCOPIES OF THE PAPER REPORTS DATED 2.8.04, 3.8.04, 10.8.04 APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA AND MADHYAMAM DAILY ON 11.2.05 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.254/2004-05/4994/M3/04 DATED 23.7.04 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P13 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DATED 23.7.04 APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA EXT.P14 PHOTOCOPIES OF THE PAPER REPORTS DATED 31.7.04 AND 1.8.04 APPEARED IN MATHRUBHOOMI AND MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILIES. EXT.P15 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO. 1128/C2/TDO/05 DATED 7.9.05 FROM THE GEOLOGIST THRISSUR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P16 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. C6-21446/2004(1) DATED 10.3.06 ISSUED TO M/S. B.P. ASSOCIATES, FROM 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P17 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. C6-21446/04/KDIS DATED 1.3.07 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. EXT.P18 (a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.6.07 SUBMITTED BY THE PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THRISSUR. EXT.P18(b) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 14.7.07 OF THE LOCAL RESIDENCE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THRISSUR. EXT.P19 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. LR (A5) 12756/2007 DATED 16.10.07 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE. 4 EXT.P20 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. C6-20569/2007/K.DIS. DATED 28.11.07 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 6TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD MADE BY THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(c) TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA DATED 3.8.2004 OF THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD. EXT.R6(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BY THE PANCHAYATH. 7TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.3.2008. EXT.R7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE ISSUED TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 31.7.2004 EXT.R7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 14578 OF 2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R7(d) TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 15035/06 DATED 20.6.06 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.7.2006 IN I.A.NO. 9566 OF 2006 IN WPC 27403 OF 2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R7(e) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE INDUSTRIAL PLANT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 17.8.2006 EXT.R7(f) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED ON INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED HARD ROCK QUARRY AND CRUSHER UNIT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.C. NOs. 27403/05, 20230/06 & 6623/08 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT In these connected cases, the challenge is against Ext.P9 order produced in WPC 6623 of 2008, whereunder the Land Revenue Commissioner has in an appeal filed under Rule 169(4) of the Explosive Rules, 1983, vacated the order of the District Collector and directed the District Collector to issue no objection certificate to the 9th respondent in the said W.P.C. to obtain Explosive licence to start quarrying and crushing operations in his property. While two Writ Petitions are filed by individuals, the third W.P. is filed by Grama Panchayat opposing the applicant's proposal to start quarrying in his property. I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the cases, Government Pleader and counsel appearing for the applicant for exclusive licence. 2. The applicant, operating a stone crushing unit, applied for explosive licence to mine rock from his property for crushing the same in his crushing unit. The District Single Window Clearance Board, in 2 it's meeting held on 2.11.2004 approved the applicant's proposal and the same was confirmed by the Government through order of the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries on 24.8.2005. The Green Channel Committee of DIC on 23.6.2006 directed the Panchayat to grant licence to the applicant for establishing the unit. Even though the District Single Window Clearance Board consisting of District Collector as a member approved the applicant's proposal, the applicant's request for NOC to get explosive licence was rejected by the District Collector, against which the applicant filed appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner vide Ext.P9 order poduced in WPC 6623 of 2008 allowed the appeal and directed the District Collector to issue NOC to the applicant subject to the condition that such NOC will be subject to safety measures directed by the Centre for Earth Sciences Study. The District Collector is further directed to set up a local monitoring committee to ensure that the licensee continues to comply with the conditions under which NOC is issued. The objections raised by the petitioners are common. The first objection is that area is earth quake prone and blasting of rock will cause danger to public life. On this the Land Revenue Commissioner 3 has held as follows: The contention of the district authority does not appear to be borne out by the records. The CESS has not stated that the area is the epicentre of the Earthquakes zone. It has said that the area is vulnerable to earthquakes and that stress accumulation is likely to be on an East West fault, coinciding with the Bharathapuzha River. The micro tremors, which occurs in the region where the quarry is proposed does not have any significant effect on engineering structures but can be disturbing to the local population. The Earth tremors which will be caused if the amount of explosive used is hight and if the hole in which it is detonated is deep, is quite different from the tectonic earthquakes which is apprehended by the local population. To generate a micro tremor of 0.5 on the Richter scale explosion of 5.6 Kg. of TNT will be needed. Normal quarry uses only 150 grams of explosives and that too at depth of 1.5 metres. Therefore, the contention of the counter petitioners that quarrying can lead to earthquakes is not borne out by scientific evidence. From the above, it is clear that blasting of rock with low intensity explosives will not trigger any earthquake. Moreover recurrence of earthquakes in the area are not caused on account of mining of rock. This is absolutely a technical matter and I find that Land Revenue Commissioner completely followed the recommendations of the technical body namely, CESS, functioning under the Government of Kerala and in fact the NOC directed to be issued is subject to the 4 maintenance of precautions in the recommendations of the CESS. Therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P9 on this ground. 3. The next ground raised by petitioners is that there is water tank which is going to be affected by blasting of rock. The Land Revenue Commissioner has taken the opinion of the Executive Engineer of the concerned Department who has stated that the water tank is not going to be affected on account of quarrying or crushing operations by the petitioner. Another ground vehemently stated by the petitioners is public safety, nearness of school, etc. However, it is seen from the data furnished by the Tahsildar that quarrying and crushing operations are proposed in a large extent of 6.673 acres of land which has vast deposit of stones which is revealed from photographs produced by the parties in this Court. In fact, nearest house is 310 metres away from the quarrying area and the water tank, the safety of which is the concern of petitioners, is located 290 metres away from the crusher unit. The school is 1-1/2 Kms. away from the crusher unt. On the whole I find that apprehensions expressed by the petitioners are considered in detail by the Land Revenue Commissioner and he has 5 found that objections are absolutely untenable. Further it is seen that NOC directed to be granted is subject to strict conditions imposed by the technical body under the control of Govt., namely, CESS. Above all it is to be seen that the District Single Window Clearance Board approved quarrying and crushing operations which generates employment, availability of building materials like rubble, stone chips, etc. It is a fact known to all that cost of construction is high because of non-availability of building materials. Government is also encouraging housing construction, by giving income tax benefits and providing loan through nationalised banks. It is for the State to encourage production of building materials, such as rubble, stone chips, etc., so that price will come down. In the circumstances, I find no justification for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner. WPCs are accordingly dismissed. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 6