Allowed

Ottappalam Granites (P) Ltd. v. the District Collector/Magistrate

Kerala HC15 Sept 2022WP(C)/5009/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order rejecting the petitioner's application for an NOC to obtain an Explosives Licence. The court held that the rejection, based solely on unverified apprehensions from residents and the absence of documents relevant to quarrying operations rather than the NOC itself, did not comply with the statutory verification requirements under the Explosives Rules.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the NOC application is set aside, and the Additional District Magistrate is directed to reconsider the application expeditiously in accordance with law.

Ottappalam Granites (P) Ltd. Vs the District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022/24TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 5009 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

OTTAPPALAM GRANITES (P) LTD., VI/751, KALLENS SHOPPING CENTRE, PUKATTUPADY, EDATHALA P.O, ERNAKULAM - 683561, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.FINIX VARGHESE.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.DENU JOSEPH SRI.BIBIN BABU

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD – 678001.

¶10

2 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD – 678001.

¶11

3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, C-2, IIIRD FLOOR, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, C.S.E.Z. POST, KAKKANAD, KOCHI – 682037.

¶12

4 LAKKIDY PERUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANGALAM P.O, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679301, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

5 SURESH BABU, M.P. HOUSE, MULANJOOR POST, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679511.

¶14

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

6 VIJAYA GOVINDAN, MULLAPULLYMADOM, MULANJOOR POST, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679511.

¶17

7 NARAYANAN T., THOTTATHIL HOUSE, MULANJOOR POST, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679511.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.P.JAYARAM SRI.K.R.SANTHOSH KUMAR SRI.MANU S., ASG OF INDIA SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

: 3 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.5009 of 2021

¶25

Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2022

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶28

Petitioner is a Company engaged in granite quarrying business. The petitioner holds 5.7 Hectares of property in Lakkidy Perur-1 Village of Palakkad District. The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P8 order of the 2^nd respondent-Additional District Magistrate rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for NOC to obtain Explosives Licence.

¶29

In the year 2015, the petitioner, with an intention to apply for a quarrying lease, approached the 1^st respondent-District Collector seeking NOC under Rule 102 of the Explosives Rules, 2008 for establishing a Magazine for storage of explosives. The application was rejected. The

¶30

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

petitioner did not pursue the said application since the application was submitted without prior approval under Rule 101 of the Explosives Rules.

¶33

The petitioner later obtained Ext.P1 approval from the 3^rd respondent-Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives for the proposed possession for use of explosives from a Magazine. Ext.P1 approval was on condition that the petitioner shall submit NOC and endorsed plan. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P2 application to the 1^st respondent for grant of NOC under Rule 113 of the Explosives Rules,2008.

¶34

The 1^st respondent sent Ext.P3 letter to the Secretary to the 4^th respondent-Panchayat asking whether the Panchayat has any objection in issuing NOC. The Secretary informed the 1^st respondent that the Council on 31.03.2017 had decided not to give NOC and that the Council meeting scheduled to be held on 27.06.2018, will again consider the issue.

¶35

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

Thereafter, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P6 letter requiring the petitioner to produce Letter of Intent from the

¶38

Geology Department and Environmental Clearance Certificate. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 explanation pointing out that those documents are not necessary at this stage as the application is only for NOC for Explosives Licence.

¶39

Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent has issued Ext.P8 order dated 16.11.2020 rejecting the application for NOC. The 2^nd respondent has rejected the application on the ground that local residents have strongly opposed establishment of quarry and that local residents have expressed apprehension that if quarrying is permitted, it will adversely affect agricultural activities and life and property of residents in the valley. Ext.P8 further stated that the petitioner has not produced any documents to controvert the anxiety and hence it has to be held that the public interest is not protected as mandated by Rule 103(3) of the Explosives Rules, 2008.

¶40

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

¶41

: 6 :

¶42

The counsel for the petitioner argued that under Rule 103(3) of the Explosives Rules, the District Magistrate has to verify antecedents of the applicant, lawful possession of the site, genuineness of the purpose and interest of the general public. Rule 103(3)(a) contemplates a public notice to be published inviting public to raise their objection. The 2^nd respondent cannot take a decision based on the reports of Police and Revenue authorities. Ext.P8 has been passed without any materials to support the decision.

¶43

The 2^nd respondent defended the writ petitioner filing counter affidavit. The 2^nd respondent stated that several complaints have been received against the proposed quarry. Reports of the District Police Chief and Tahsildar also indicated that there are serious objections. The Panchayat has decided not to permit the Quarry. The petitioner has not obtained Environmental Clearance or Letter of Intent from competent authorities. The petitioner has not been able to disprove the findings in Ext.P8. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

¶45

: 7 :

¶46

The Assistant Solicitor General of India

¶47

representing the 3^rd respondent submitted that Ext.P1 approval has been granted to the petitioner under the Explosives Rules subject to certain conditions and one of the conditions is obtaining of NOC. If the petitioner obtains NOC and satisfies all other conditions stipulated in Ext.P1, their application for licence for possession for use of Explosives from the propose Magazine can be considered.

¶48

Respondents 6 and 7 also opposed the writ petition. It is submitted that the magazine sought to be established by the petitioner is for storage of large amount of explosives. The storage would create irreversible environmental hazards in the locality. The petitioner is trying to establish a crusher unit also. The inhabitants around are mostly farmers, who depend for their livelihood on agriculture, mainly, double crop paddy cultivation. The establishment of magazine would result in threats of erosion of lands and destruction to agriculture. It will also destroy the perennial sources of water.

¶49

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

¶50

: 8 :

¶51

The magazine is proposed to be established on a

¶52

higher terrain. The distance requirements are not met. There is a temple within a radius of 300 meters of the proposed magazine. There is a large temple pond with an extent of around 50 Cents. It is a perennial water source and water body. The establishment of the magazine on the hill side would disrupt the drinking water source. The huge explosions undertaken would induce landslides and catastrophes involving human lives.

¶53

Establishment of magazine would thwart the normal living of the people. The local and other authorities are acting without responsibility to take care of the concerns of the people. The petitioner is rich and powerful and has tremendous influence over authorities. The petitioner was able to obtain permits and consents from the authorities by undue influence. Such permits do not reflect the ground realities. Ext.P8 order is only to be legally maintained, contended respondents 6 and 7.

¶54

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

¶55

: 9 :

¶56

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India representing the 3^rd respondent, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent-Panchayat and the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.

¶57

The petitioner proposes to start quarrying work in the land possessed by the Company. The proposed quarrying would require use of explosives and an Explosives Magazine will have to be constructed, which requires Explosives Licence. The Competent Authority has granted approval for construction, as per Ext.P1, on condition that the petitioner shall obtain NOC from the District Authority.

¶58

Rule 103 of the Explosives Rules provides that the District Magistrate on receipt of application referred in subrule (1), shall make verification of the antecedents of the applicant, lawful possession of the site, genuineness of the purpose, interest of public and any other verifications or enquiries as may be specifically required by the licensing

¶59

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

¶60

: 10 :

¶61

authority to be carried out, if any, and on any other matter as deemed necessary.

¶62

The Rule also lays down the procedural requirements for verification of the interest of the public. The District Magistrate has to cause a notice to be published calling upon the public to submit objections. The Rule explains the mode in which such objections are to be considered.

¶63

Ext.P8 proceedings would show that the 2^nd respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner solely based on the apprehensions expressed by certain persons and authorities. The 2^nd respondent has not made any enquiries as to the genuineness or sustainability of such objections. On the other hand, the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P8 has stated that the petitioner has failed to disprove the apprehensions expressed by the objectors. This Court has held in Joy Joseph v. District Collector, Kannur and others [2016 (3) KLT 514] that application for grant of NOC cannot be rejected merely for the reason that there are

¶64

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

¶65

: 11 :

¶66

objections against the grant.

¶67

In Ext.P8, the 2^nd respondent has further stated that the petitioner has not produced Environmental Clearance or Letter of Intent from competent authorities. It is to be noted that what the petitioner has applied for is an NOC for obtaining Explosives Licence for construction of an Explosives Magazine. Starting of quarrying operations would require Letter of Intent from Geology Department, Environmental Clearance and a number of other statutory licences/clearances/permits from competent authorities, which can be given/issued only after due enquiries and verifications. Environmental impact and threat to public life or property etc. are issues to be considered by the competent statutory authorities at the appropriate stage. The 2^nd respondent, for the purpose of issuing NOC under the Explosives Rules, cannot insist production of those documents.

¶68

For all the afore reasons, Ext.P8 cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Ext.P8 order of the 2^nd respondent is

¶69

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

¶70

: 12 :

¶71

therefore set aside. The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously, in accordance

¶72

with law.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/13.09.2022

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

: 13 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5009/2021

¶79

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶80

EXHIBIT P1	THE 05.0 BY T	COPY O 7.2016 HE 3RD	F THE ALONG RESPON	PRIOR APPROVAL DATED WITH THE PLAN ISSUED DENT.
EXHIBIT P2	THE 08.0 THE	COPY 7.2016 PETITIO	OF TH WITH F NER TO	E APPLICATION DATED ROM DE-1 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	THE	COPY	OF	THE LETTER NO.D3-
	2016	/47242/	9(4)	DATED NIL ISSUED BY
	THE RESP	1ST ONDENT.	RESPON	DENT TO THE 4TH
EXHIBIT P4	THE	COPY	OF	THE LETTER DATED
	20.0 RESP	6.2018 ONDENT	ISSU TO THE	ED BY THE 4TH 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	THE 29.0 1287	COPY 6.2020 3/2020.	OF IN	THE JUDGMENT DATED WRIT PETITION NO.
EXHIBIT P6	THE	COPY	OF	THE NOTICE DATED
	13.1 RESP	0.2020 ONDENT.	ISSU	ED BY THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P7	THE 27.1	COPY 0.2020	OF THE ISSUED	REPLY LETTER DATED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	THE PASS	COPY O ED BY T	F THE O HE 2ND	RDER DATED 16.11.2020 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	THE 25.0 7.	COPY 6.2018	OF T RAISED	HE OBJECTION DATED BY RESPONDENTS 5 TO

¶81

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶82

Exhibit R1(a)	True copy	of	the report of	the
	District Po	lice	Chief bearing No	. D-
	4/74258/2016	/P d	ated 04.11.2016
Exhibit R1(b)	True copy Tahsildar	of be	the report of aring No.	the D1-
	2016/10131/9	/400	dated 23-01-2017
Exhibit R1(c)	True copy o No. Dated 23	f th -04-	e report bearing 2018	even

¶83

W.P.(C) No.5009/2021

¶84

: 14 :

¶85

Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the letter of the Panchayat dated 12-04-2017 Exhibit R1(e) True copy of the letter of Panchayat dated 23-07-2020 Exhibit R1(f) True copy the resolution bearing No.17/1 taken at the meeting dated 2706-2018 of the 4th respondent Panchayat.

¶86

Ottappalam Granites (P) Ltd. v. the District Collector/Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ottappalam Granites (P) Ltd. v. the District Collector/Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Servotech Power Systems Ltd. Vs Shri. C. N. Rajendra Kumar

Manoj Kumar Vs Mohanan

Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Selvaraj a., Vs the District Collector

Selvaraj a, Vs Raju K.Philip

V.O.Devassikutty Vs Vishnu Raj P IAS