2011 (3) TMI 1761 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses challenge to quarry establishment permits; emphasizes compliance monitoring

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the No Objection Certificate (NOC) and Consent issued for establishing a quarry. The petitioner's ... - Issues Involved:1. Challenge to Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the District Collector.2. Challenge to Ext.P4 Consent issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.3. Request for assessment of environmental damage by a competent agency.Summary:1. Challenge to Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate (NOC):The petitioner sought to quash Ext.P2 NOC issued by the District Collector, Thrissur, and Ext.P4 Consent issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the 5th respondent for establishing a quarry. The 5th respondent's initial application for an NOC was rejected, leading to an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner, who allowed the appeal and directed the issuance of the NOC subject to safety measures proposed by the Center for Earth Science and Studies (CESS). The District Collector then issued Ext.P2 NOC and constituted a Local Monitoring Committee. Previous challenges to the NOC in W.P(C) Nos. 27403 of 2005, 20230 of 2006, and 6623 of 2008 were dismissed by the Court, upholding the grant of the NOC. The Court noted that the petitioner, not being a party to the earlier judgments, could not successfully challenge Ext.P2. The Court reiterated that blasting with low-intensity explosives would not trigger an earthquake, as per the findings in Ext.R5(a) and R5(b) judgments.2. Challenge to Ext.P4 Consent:Ext.P4 is the consent granted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to establish a quarry, valid until 30.6.2012. The petitioner did not challenge the consent to operate the quarry issued on 4.7.2009. Given the time elapsed and the established quarry operations, the Court opined that the petitioner could not successfully challenge Ext.P4.3. Request for Assessment of Environmental Damage:The petitioner alleged serious environmental imbalance due to the quarrying operations and requested an assessment by CESS or another competent agency. However, the petitioner failed to provide specific details or cogent material to support the allegations. The Land Revenue Commissioner, in Ext.P1 order, had already addressed the concerns, stating that controlled quarrying would not cause significant environmental impact or trigger earthquakes. The Court found no sufficient grounds to grant the requested relief, emphasizing the need for periodic inspections by the Local Monitoring Committee.Conclusion:The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the Local Monitoring Committee to conduct monthly inspections of the quarry to ensure compliance with the NOC conditions. The District Collector was instructed to ensure the Committee submits periodic reports. No costs were awarded.