Quarry permissions upheld on existing findings, while periodic monitoring was ordered to enforce compliance conditions.

A quarry permission already upheld on scientific and factual grounds could not be reopened in writ jurisdiction without fresh cogent material. The High Court rejected the challenge to the District Collector's no-objection certificate and the Pollution Control Board's consent to operate because the petitioner showed no present illegality, environmental prejudice, or factual basis for interference. The prayer for a fresh environmental damage assessment was also declined for want of convincing evidence. However, the Court directed periodic monthly inspection by the Local Monitoring Committee to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to the quarry authorization.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the No Objection Certificate granted by the District Collector for quarrying could be challenged by the petitioner. (ii) Whether the consent granted by the Pollution Control Board to operate the quarry could be interfered with. (iii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for assessment of environmental damage and periodic monitoring of the quarry operations.

Issue (i): Whether the No Objection Certificate granted by the District Collector for quarrying could be challenged by the petitioner.

Analysis: The validity of the No Objection Certificate had already been upheld in earlier proceedings relating to the same quarry. The earlier decision accepted the scientific assessment that controlled blasting with low intensity explosives would not trigger an earthquake and that the apprehended danger to nearby structures and residents was not supported by the record. The challenge was therefore not open to successful attack in the writ petition.

Conclusion: The challenge to the No Objection Certificate was rejected and the petitioner could not succeed on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the consent granted by the Pollution Control Board to operate the quarry could be interfered with.

Analysis: The quarry had already been permitted to operate under a valid consent granted by the Pollution Control Board, and the petitioner had not specifically challenged that operating consent. In the absence of any cogent basis to show illegality or present environmental prejudice, the consent could not be interfered with at that stage.

Conclusion: The challenge to the consent to operate the quarry was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for assessment of environmental damage and periodic monitoring of the quarry operations.

Analysis: The petitioner did not place convincing material to show serious environmental damage or a factual basis for the claim that the quarrying operations were contrary to the safety conditions. At the same time, the record showed that a Local Monitoring Committee had been constituted to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to the No Objection Certificate, and the need for periodic inspection remained relevant to secure adherence to those conditions.

Conclusion: The prayer for environmental assessment was declined, but periodic monthly inspection by the Local Monitoring Committee was directed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on the substantive challenges to the quarry permissions, while a limited direction was issued to ensure regular monitoring of compliance with the permit conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: A quarry permission already sustained on scientific and factual grounds cannot be re-opened in writ jurisdiction without fresh cogent material, but compliance monitoring may still be directed to enforce the conditions of authorization.

---