JUDGMENT : C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. 1. Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P22 Order of the 3 rd respondent Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, as per which, an N.O.C sought for by the petitioner in terms of Section 40 (2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 2003, has been rejected, citing three specific reasons about which detailed reference will be made herebelow. 2. Heard Sri.Jobi Jose Kondody learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Davis P.I, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, Sri.Georgekutty Mathew, learned Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5. When the matter was practically heard in full, an impleading petition was filed at the instance of the additional 7 th respondent. The same was allowed. Heard Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Sri.Millu Dandapani, on behalf of the additional 7 th respondent. The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) was also subsequently impleaded as Additional 8 th respondent and Sri.M.P Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel was heard on its behalf. 3. Before addressing the relative merit of Ext.P22, the things which transpired until the issuance of Ext.P22 has to be taken note of. The petitioner wanted to conduct business in quarrying in the subject site, for which Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance was issued by the SEIAA. Ext.P2 is the Consent to Operate issued by the Pollution Control Board; Ext.P3, the LE-3 licence issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives; Ext.P5, the trade licence issued by the Grama Panchayat concerned; and Ext.P6 is the quarrying permit issued by the Geologist. On the premise that Ext.P6 permit could not be acted upon because of the delay in issuing Ext.P5, the petitioner sought for extension of Ext.P6 quarrying permit, which was allowed vide Ext.P7. 4. A Writ Petition was filed at the instance of the 5 th respondent, along with certain others, pointing out that the petitioner is conducting quarrying operations without a ‘No Objection Certificate’ under Section 40 (2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 2003’, for brevity). The litigation culminated in Ext.P8 judgment directing the authorities to ensure that the petitioner complies with the requirements of (2) of the Act 2003, and also, to consider petitioner’s representation in this regard. The litigation culminated in Ext.P8 judgment directing the authorities to ensure that the petitioner complies with the requirements of (2) of the Act 2003, and also, to consider petitioner’s representation in this regard. The petitioner carried a Writ Appeal, which resulted in Ext.P9 interim 0rder, wherein the Division Bench directed constitution of an Expert Committee to study the effect of blasting, while carrying out quarrying works. The committee conducted such study and placed a report vide Ext.P11 before the Division Bench. In Ext.P11 report, the Expert Committee found that, during blasting, no noticeable vibrations or impacts near the water tanks were observed manually. It was also indicated in Ext.P11 that the impact of blasting on tanks would depend upon the age of tanks, structural strength, blast intensity etc., which can be analyzed only with the assistance of persons having expertise in the field and with necessary equipments. The name of one such expert, namely the National Institute of Rock Mechanics, Bengaluru, was also suggested. The report was placed before the Division Bench, which found that the report is grossly dis- satisfactory and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the 3 rd respondent herein, vide Ext.P17 interim Order. Thereafter, the Writ Appeal was disposed of vide Ext.P18 judgment, directing the petitioner to make an application for ‘No Objection Certificate’ under (2) of the Act 2003, before the 3 rd respondent, in the light of Ext.P16 Guidelines issued by the Government of Kerala for grant of such Certificate. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred Ext.P19 application for N.O.C. It is the said application, which stands rejected by the impugned Ext.P22 Order, citing three specific reasons. 5. This Court will now refer to the reasons specifically enumerated in Ext.P22: Reason No.1 ‘1) There is a stream named Erattayani Thodu which flows along the South West direction of the quarry site at a distance of 121.5m away from quarry boundary. This stream flowing towards the south to meet Vallichira Thodu and then merges with Meenachil river at Puliyanoor, Pala. The stream falls within the buffer zone for the stream as per the ref.(2) Government Order (Clause A item No 4 in the table).’ 6. As regards this, it is the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a commission was taken out from this Court to ascertain the existence and distance of the Erattayani Thodu from the quarry boundary. As regards this, it is the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that a commission was taken out from this Court to ascertain the existence and distance of the Erattayani Thodu from the quarry boundary. The same is seen reported in page no.3 of the final Commission report under point A, which is extracted herebelow:- ‘A. Ascertain the distance from the petitioner's quarry to Erattayani Thodu with the help of the 6th respondent and verifying the village records. The sixth respondent with team were present on all days of inspection. On 05/04/2025, the sixth respondent conveyed me that there were no thodu as seen on village records with name ‘erattayanithodu’. The nearest perennial thodu as per sixth respondent is at an aerial distance of 1263.5 meters from boundary pillar No 10 of the Quarry site. Photographs dated 05/04/2025 and 19/04/2025 of the thodu near to 'Alinkal Jalanidi Kudivella Padhathi' pump House is produced herewith as Annexure CF2.’ 7. The issue is again seen discussed in paragraph no.F of the report at page no.6, which is also extracted herebelow:- ‘F. Produce and report before this Honourable Court the photographs of Erattayani Thodu referred to in ground No.1 of the rejection order and place shown as Erattayani Thodu by the 3rd respondent. On 05/04/2025, this commissioner has identified the place shown as 'Erattayani Thodu’ and photographs were taken for future reference. But to comply with principle of natural justice, presence of third respondent is necessary. Hence on 19/04/2025, the commissioner has directed the third respondent to identify 'Erattayani Thodu’ referred in Ground No.1 of the rejection order. Third and fifth respondents with their teams directed the commissioner towards south of quarry site and shown a place where two seemingly rills converge to form a gully. I sought help of the sixth respondent to check whether this gully is marked on village records. Sixth respondent affirmed that, it is not on village records. The converging point is 122.6 meters aerially apart from boundary pillar No.10 of the quarry site. The commissioner has taken photographs of the point on 05/04/2025 and 19/04/2025. There was no trace of water in the gully on 05/04/2025. There was traces of water hardly flowing with approximately half feet depth seen on approximately 30 meters away from the converging point on 19/04/2025. The commissioner has taken photographs of the point on 05/04/2025 and 19/04/2025. There was no trace of water in the gully on 05/04/2025. There was traces of water hardly flowing with approximately half feet depth seen on approximately 30 meters away from the converging point on 19/04/2025. Photographs dated 05/04/2025 and 19/04/2025 of the convergent point of two rills is produced herewith as Annexure CF7 .’ 8. It could thus be seen that from the discussion under point A no thodu by name Erattayani Thodu could be noticed by the Commissioner, and the distance from the quarry boundary to the nearest perennial thodu is 1263.5 meters. Whereas, vide point no.F, the so called Erattayani Thodu - as pointed out by respondents 3 and 5 – is identified as a place where two seeming rills converged to form a gully. The same is not marked in the Village records. The distance from boundary pillar no.10 of the quarry site upto the converging point is 122.6 meters. The photographs produced at Annexure CF7 would indicate that there was no trace of water in the gully on 05/04/2025, and on 19/04/2025, there is approximately half feet depth flow of water, which is at a distance of 30 meters away from the converging point. 9. Under point no.G, another rill was pointed out and noticed by the Advocate Commissioner. The 3 rd respondent would orally convey that it is a tributary stream of ‘Erattayani Thodu’. However, no records are available to ascertain the same. Out of the two rills pointed out, one is having no trace of water in all days of inspection, and the other, having traces of water originating from landing place of culvert in public road. The width is between 30 centimeters and 2 meters, and the aerial distance from boundary pillar no.10 of the quarry, to the rill originating from the culvert is 114 meters. 10. This report of the Advocate Commissioner was opposed by learned Senior Government Pleader, who filed argument notes before this Court, doubting the correctness of the Advocate Commissioner’s report. He would point out that the distance, as depicted in the final report, is different at different places of the report. 10. This report of the Advocate Commissioner was opposed by learned Senior Government Pleader, who filed argument notes before this Court, doubting the correctness of the Advocate Commissioner’s report. He would point out that the distance, as depicted in the final report, is different at different places of the report. While it is 1263.5 meters under point no.A, it is 122.6 meters in point no.F and 114 meters in point no.G and 310 meters in point no.O. This Court may straight away reject that contention by pointing out that the Commissioner was referring to various different thodu/gully/rill etc and he was not referring to the same water resource under the above points. Going by Section 40 (2) of the Act 2003, N.O.C is warranted for conducting mining or quarrying operations within a radius of one kilometre from any bridge, dam, check dam or any other work, structure or construction, owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, a local authority or any other authority. A water resource - leave alone the fact that it is trivial in the instant facts – is not expressly contemplated in (2) of the Act 2003. Now, by virtue of Ext.P16 Guidelines, a distance of 200 meter buffer zone has been prescribed for rivers, streams and lakes. Here, again, it is doubtful whether a very trivial rivulet as noticed by the Commissioner in the final Commission report would fall within the ambit of the expression ‘river, streams and lakes’. At any rate, no such thodu as Erattayani Thodu as found in Ext.P22 rejection Order could be noticed by the Commissioner. The nearest perennial thodu was found only to a distance of 1263.5 meters, which is obviously beyond the cap of one kilometer, in terms of (2) of Act 2003. The purpose of (2) appears to be to ensure that the quarrying operations do not pose any obstruction to a bridge, dam, check dam or any other work or structure or construction owned by the Government or local authority. By Ext.P16, the scope has been expanded to rivers, lakes and streams. A trivial flow of water, which is so thin and insignificant as noted in point nos.F, G and O of the Commissioner’s report can hardly be qualified for the purpose of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ in terms of (2) of the Act 2003. By Ext.P16, the scope has been expanded to rivers, lakes and streams. A trivial flow of water, which is so thin and insignificant as noted in point nos.F, G and O of the Commissioner’s report can hardly be qualified for the purpose of a ‘No Objection Certificate’ in terms of (2) of the Act 2003. The Commissioner has chosen to explain the so- called water fall as a rill converging to form a gully. There was no trace of water in the gully on the first day of inspection and on the second day, the trace of water found was very insignificant, that is to say, a flow with approximately half feet depth. If that be so, the first objection as propounded in Ext.P22 cannot hold the ground. Rejection on that count is liable to be interfered. 11. The second objection in Ext.P22, is as follows:- ‘2) Two ground water tanks of 1 lakh litre capacity each located at 238.5m and 249.7m respectively from quarry location. As stated by the IIIT authorities, these two water tanks are the main source of water supply in IIIT campus. These two water tanks are just outside the buffer zone of 200m and positions in a sloppy terrain. The shock waves created when blasting for quarrying rocks may not die down when it reaches the water tank in such a short distance, especially in sloppy terrain. The vibrations created due to blasting can pose significant risk to the structural integrity and safety of the water tank due to failure of foundation. In such case the water supply system in IIIT campus will be adversely affected.’ 12. This pertains to two ground water tanks of 1 lakh litre capacity located in the campus of I.I.I.T, the additional 7 th respondent herein. Ext.P22 would state that these water tanks are outside the buffer zone of 200 meters and are positioned in a sloppy terrain. The shock waves created when blasting may not die down, when it reaches the water tank, was the finding under objection no.2. It was doubted that blasting operations would pose significant risk to the structural integrity and safety of the water tank due to the failure of foundation. 13. In this regard, this Court should straight away notice that, after the impleadment of the additional 7 th respondent, an application was preferred by the said respondent for appointment of an expert. It was doubted that blasting operations would pose significant risk to the structural integrity and safety of the water tank due to the failure of foundation. 13. In this regard, this Court should straight away notice that, after the impleadment of the additional 7 th respondent, an application was preferred by the said respondent for appointment of an expert. Accordingly, this Court appointed an expert body, namely the National Institute of Rock Mechanics (N.I.R.M) to conduct a study on the impact of the blasting operations on the I.I.I.T campus, as also, the ground water tanks therein. The same was done as per Order dated 16/10/2025, wherein this Court directed the N.I.R.M, vide paragraph no.4, to conduct a blasting impact assessment study and vibration study in respect of the quarrying operations, so as to ascertain the matters, which are referred to in an earlier Order dated 26/09/2025. As per Order dated 26/09/2025, SEIAA was directed to conduct a study on the impact, if any, on the additional 7 th respondent Institution due to the functioning of the quarry. In other words, the deleterious impact, if any, due to the functioning of the quarry on the additional 7 th respondent institution was directed to be ascertained. When SEIAA expressed its inability due to want of expertise for conducting blasting impact assessment study and vibration study, this Court appointed N.I.R.M to conduct the study. After conducting an exhaustive study, a detailed report has been preferred before this Court by the N.I.R.M. The conclusions and recommendations of the study is contained in internal page no.28 of the report of the N.I.R.M, which is extracted herebelow:- ‘1) The M/s premier quarry authorities organized blasting only for the purpose of scientific study to assess the blast induced ground vibration and air overpressure impact to the surrounding structures as per the court order. 2) All the blasts monitored during the field investigation period were safe with respect to ground vibration and air overpressure. 3) Blast vibration studies were carried out for the regular and routine blasts that are adopted at M/s Premier quarry. For the purpose of the studies the maximum charge per delay was increased from 0.25 kg to 1.25kg. 2) All the blasts monitored during the field investigation period were safe with respect to ground vibration and air overpressure. 3) Blast vibration studies were carried out for the regular and routine blasts that are adopted at M/s Premier quarry. For the purpose of the studies the maximum charge per delay was increased from 0.25 kg to 1.25kg. 4) From the analysis of the data, it can be observed that, from production blasting the frequency of vibration is 13.2 Hz to 106.5 Hz and considering the DGMS standards, the most conservative permissible limit for "Domestic houses/ structures (Kuchha, brick and cement)" not belonging to the owner happens to be 10mm/s and considering the sensitive of various structures the most conservative permissible limit of 5 mm/s is recommended for structures around the M/s premier quarry site. 5) Similarly, based on the IS code (14881:2001) and USBM guidelines (USBM RI 8485), the permissible air overpressure level is 133dB. 6) Based on the above full scale scientific study, it was observed that the blast vibrations have attenuated below 5 mm/s at a distance of 40 m and at a distance of 127 m the vibration levels were below 1 mm/s (for the MCD range of 0.25 kg to 1.25 kg). 7) The distance between monitoring stations and blasting locations varied between 20 m to 278 m. No vibration data was recorded by the seismographs which were placed beyond 130 m from the blast location (triggering levels of the instruments were set at sensitive level of 0.51 mm/s and Air overpressure level of 110dB). Considering the above results, it can be found that blasting can be permitted beyond the distance of 100 m from any structure (IIIT campus, proposed water tank, temple and residential houses). Even though the computed maximum charge per delay for restricting the ground vibration levels to 5 mm/sec is 2.13 kg, it is recommended to restrict the maximum charge per delay to 1.0 kg only. 8) Even though the experiments were carried for maximum charge per delay of 1.25 kg, it is recommended to restrict the maximum charge per delay to 1kg only. 9) Site specific predictor equation at 95% confidence level was arrived to estimate the safe maximum charge per delay for different distances and given in Table 6. 8) Even though the experiments were carried for maximum charge per delay of 1.25 kg, it is recommended to restrict the maximum charge per delay to 1kg only. 9) Site specific predictor equation at 95% confidence level was arrived to estimate the safe maximum charge per delay for different distances and given in Table 6. 10) The maximum charge per delay for a given distance in any blast shall not exceed as suggested in Table 6 for all the future blasts. The maximum charge per delay is restricted to 1.0 kgs for the structure beyond 70 m from the blast location. 11) The flyrock distance for the blast carried out during the investigation period were within 20 m from the blast and are safe with respect to blasting danger zone. In no case the flyrock shall go beyond the lease boundary of the quarry. 12) It is recommended to maintain blast wise register for all the blasts conducted in the quarry for future reference.’ 14. It could be seen from the above that no harmful impact will be caused to the additional 7 th respondent institution, or for that matter, the two water tanks therein due to the quarrying operations of the petitioner. It was specifically found that all the blasts monitored during the field investigation period were safe with respect to the ground vibration and air overpressure, vide conclusion no.2. In conclusion no.7, it was specifically found that based on the results of inspection, blasting was recommended to be permitted beyond the distance of 100 meters from any structure including the additional 7 th respondent campus, the proposed water tank, the temple and residential houses. In conclusion no.11, it was found that the flyrock distance for the blast were within 20 meters from the blast and are safe with respect to the blasting danger zone. It was specifically found that the flyrock shall not go beyond the boundary of the quarry, in any case. Certain recommendations are also made vide conclusion nos.8, 10, 12 etc. 15. As against this report, objections have been filed by the additional 7 th respondent, as also, the 5 th respondent. It was specifically found that the flyrock shall not go beyond the boundary of the quarry, in any case. Certain recommendations are also made vide conclusion nos.8, 10, 12 etc. 15. As against this report, objections have been filed by the additional 7 th respondent, as also, the 5 th respondent. The main objection of both these respondents is based on a concept called ‘air overpressure’, dealt with in paragraph no.3.2 of the report of the N.I.R.M. The objection refers to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and complains that N.I.R.M has not followed the standard prescribed under those Rules. However, reliance is placed on the finding of the N.I.R.M report to the effect that air overpressure (A.O.P) is 124.8 dB in table 5, at page no.21 of the N.I.R.M’s report. It is the assertion of respondents 5 and 7 that the permissible ambient noise level in a residential area is 55dB during day time. 16. Having heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties in this regard, this Court is not in a position to accept the contentions raised by the said respondents. This Court notice that, going by the standards adopted by the N.I.R.M, an expert body in the field, what has been reckoned is air overpressure (A.O.P), as narrated in paragraph no.3.2 of the report. The said paragraph itself stipulates the permissible air overpressure level, which ranges from 105 dB to 134 dB depending upon “pass time”. The value, which has been relied upon by learned Counsel for the respondents 7 and 5 is one depicted in page no.21 of the report at Table 5, column 6. There, what has been reckoned is the first row, which depicts “Behind the blast and towards I.I.I.T campus”. The A.O.P value shown is 124.8 dB. The said respondents have no case that the said value is higher than the maximum prescribed, insofar as, A.O.P is concerned. Their case is that the said value is higher than the value prescribed by the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. No provision was brought to the notice of this Court in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which speaks about the air overpressure. Their case is that the said value is higher than the value prescribed by the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. No provision was brought to the notice of this Court in the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which speaks about the air overpressure. There cannot be any relative inference drawn from or a comparison between the ambient noise value stipulated in the schedule to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and the air overpressure, which has been taken stock of by the expert body in their report. No logical deduction can be possible from that. In the circumstances, the objection will stand rejected. 17. The objection posed by the 5 th respondent speaks about the Air Act and Water Act, which however, has been clarified by the learned Counsel for the 5 th respondent that what was intended is the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. For the same set of reasons, the objection of the 5 th respondent will also stand rejected, insofar as, the noise pollution alleged is concerned. 18. Learned Senior Counsel for the additional 7 th respondent made an attempt today to argue that SEIAA has to consider the report of the N.I.R.M, and to come with a report based on that, since SEIAA is the competent body. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel rely upon an affidavit sworn to by SEIAA in I.A No.9/2025. In that I.A, when SEIAA expressed their inexpertise to conduct a blasting impact assessment study and vibration study, reference was also made to aspects of environment safety, terrain assessment, assessment of characteristics of rocks etc. The argument of learned Senior Counsel is to the effect that the report preferred by the Expert Body N.I.R.M has to be evaluated by the SEIAA. It was also argued that condition no.14 of Ext.P1 E.C has to be ensured by SEIAA. There cannot be any quarrel with respect to the fact that a condition, which has been stipulated in Ext.P1 E.C, has to be ensured. It was also argued that condition no.14 of Ext.P1 E.C has to be ensured by SEIAA. There cannot be any quarrel with respect to the fact that a condition, which has been stipulated in Ext.P1 E.C, has to be ensured. However, in the absence of an allegation anywhere in the pleadings that the petitioner is violating any of the E.C conditions, it is too late for the additional 7 th respondent to come up with a contention that SEIAA has to re-evaluate the report of the N.I.R.M. This contention is liable to be rejected also for the reason that the sum and substance of I.A No.9/2025 preferred by the SEIAA is that they are not having the expertise to analyze the impact of blasting studies, which requires the assistance of institutions with multidisciplinary expertise, since it involves vibration analysis, structural assessment etc. This aspect has been taken stock of by this Court in its Order dated 16/10/2025 in choosing N.I.R.M to be appointed for the purpose of the conducting the study. This Court never contemplated any sort of further evaluation of N.I.R.M’s report by SEIAA, especially, when SEIAA has expressed its in-expertise in respect of the same. Nor would SEIAA canvass a case to that effect. There is no pleading in the counter affidavit filed by the additional 7 th respondent that the petitioner is conducting quarrying operations in violation of the E.C conditions, or for that matter, the quarrying permit. In the circumstances, the said contention will also stand rejected. The upshot of the above discussion is that the second objection, based upon which Ext.P22 Order was issued rejecting the N.O.C., also cannot sustain the test of law. The same will therefore stand rejected. 19. The third objection is extracted herebelow:- ‘3) The under construction Over Head Service Reservoir (OHSR) at the IIIT campus in Karoor Grama Panchayat is having 5 lakh litre capacity and it is a vital component of the water supply infrastructure under the Jal Jeevan mission project for Karoor Garama Panchayat. The same will therefore stand rejected. 19. The third objection is extracted herebelow:- ‘3) The under construction Over Head Service Reservoir (OHSR) at the IIIT campus in Karoor Grama Panchayat is having 5 lakh litre capacity and it is a vital component of the water supply infrastructure under the Jal Jeevan mission project for Karoor Garama Panchayat. This scheme envisage to supply drinking water to approximately 850 households in the surrounding area and to meet the institutional water needs for IIIT campus Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority Project Division Kottayam mentioned that, this project have 50km long water distribution pipe line, most of which is already laid across Karoor Grama Panchayat (Name of work: Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM)-Karoor Panchayat - Package 4 - Construction of 5LL GLSR and Providing transmission main distribution system and FHTCs in IIIT Area and allied works, Agreement No 41/SE/PHCK/2022-2023 FOR WORKS). This under construction OHSR is located in a sloppy terrain just 169.5m away from the south direction of the quarry location according to the survey conducted by this office. As per the ref (2) Government Order, this tank location is within the buffer zone of 200m suggested for tanks with capacity more than 20000 litres (Clause A Item No. 3 in the table). The blast shock waves created when blasting for quarrying rocks, at a very short distance from quarry will have adverse impact on existing rock strata where the foundation of under construction OHSR is proposed to be anchored. Anything adversely affecting the long-term functionality of the scheme will lead the disruption to the drinking water supply, which pose wide spread inconvenience and result in significant functional loss due to damage to the infrastructure and need for costly repair for the reconstruction.’ 20. The objection is with respect to the proposed Over Head Service Reservoir (O.H.S.R) at the I.I.I.T campus envisaging a capacity of 5 lakh litres, so as to supply drinking water to 850 households in the surrounding area. According to the 3 rd respondent, the quarrying operations of the petitioner will cause a threat to the project proposed. Firstly, this Court will have to notice that Section 40 (2) of the Act 2003 does not contemplate a construction, which is proposed, but has not been effected. It only speaks about an existing bridge, dam, check dam or any other work, structure or construction owned or controlled by the Government. Firstly, this Court will have to notice that Section 40 (2) of the Act 2003 does not contemplate a construction, which is proposed, but has not been effected. It only speaks about an existing bridge, dam, check dam or any other work, structure or construction owned or controlled by the Government. Even assuming that the proposal for an overhead tank can be brought within the expression ‘work’, this Court notice that the N.I.R.M study has also reported that the quarrying operations of the petitioner will not impact the proposed O.H.S.R sought to be installed in the I.I.I.T campus. The findings in this regard are contained in Table 5. Commencing from internal page no.20, each segment deals with the proposed water tank (see the last row of each segment). Sl.nos.1 to 9 deals with the impact of the study over the proposed water tank area in the I.I.I.T campus. Even when it comes to Sl.nos.10 to 13, the impact of the activities on the proposed water tank is also dealt with. Based on the study and analysis, there is no finding/conclusion to the effect that the quarrying activities of the petitioner will impact deleteriously the proposed O.H.S.R in any manner, whatsoever. Per contra, the finding is to the effect that all the blasts during the field in the investigation period were safe with respect to the ground vibration and air overpressure. In conclusion no.7, there is a specific finding to the effect that blasting can be permitted beyond the distance of 100 meters from any structure, which is inclusive of the proposed water tank as well. In the circumstances, the said objection also cannot hold good, so as to deny N.O.C to the petitioner. 21. Before parting with the judgment, this Court should also deal with the contention of the 3 rd respondent that the petitioner has got a statutory remedy under Section 40 (3) of the Act 2003. It is true that there is an alternative remedy provided in (3). However, it is settled that the existence of an alternative remedy does not per se constitute a bar in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. This is all the more so, in the peculiar facts of the case, which necessitated the assistance of an expert body like N.I.R.M, specifically to ascertain the deleterious impact, if any, of the quarrying activities on the additional 7 th respondent. This is all the more so, in the peculiar facts of the case, which necessitated the assistance of an expert body like N.I.R.M, specifically to ascertain the deleterious impact, if any, of the quarrying activities on the additional 7 th respondent. A great deal of objection as contained in Ext.P22 is entered around the activities and the proposed overhead water tank in the I.I.I.T campus. That apart, this Court also notice that this is a case where a Commission was issued by this Court to ascertain the facts, which are depicted in Ext.P22. In the circumstances, after having taken all these efforts, including the obtainment of an expert’s report, dismissing the Writ Petition holding that there is an alternative remedy is certainly not in the fitness of things. In the circumstances, the said objection will also stand rejected. 22. Yet another contention raised by the 3 rd respondent is with respect to the non-joinder of parties. This is raised on the premise that certain persons, who were the petitioners in a Writ Petition which culminated in Ext.P8 judgment, were not made parties in this Writ Petition. This court should immediately notice that the petitioner herein is aggrieved by Ext.P22 rejection Order issued by the 3 rd respondent. If that be so, certain persons, who have attempted to ventilate their grievance in a separate Writ Petition cannot be said to be strictly necessary parties in the instant Writ Petition. At any rate, the Writ Petition cannot be discounted for that reason. This Court also notice that one among them namely, the 5 th respondent, has been made a respondent in the Writ Petition, which be treated at least in a representative capacity. As has been done by the additional 7 th respondent, if any of the petitioners in that Writ Petition were desirous of themselves getting impleaded in the Writ Petition, they could have very well opted to do so. The same having not been done consciously by the said petitioners, it is not open for the 3 rd respondent to contend that they are necessary parties here. 23. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition will stand allowed. Ext.P22 will stand set aside. The same having not been done consciously by the said petitioners, it is not open for the 3 rd respondent to contend that they are necessary parties here. 23. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition will stand allowed. Ext.P22 will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the 3 rd respondent to issue N.O.C in terms of Section 40 (2) of the Act 2003, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment before the 3 rd respondent for compliance. In view of the apprehensions raised by the additional 7 th respondent Institution, there will be a direction to the 1 st respondent Geologist to conduct periodical inspection in the quarrying premises of the petitioner to ensure that the petitioner is conducting quarrying operations, strictly in accordance with conditions stipulated in Ext.P1 E.C and Ext.P7 quarrying permit. Needles to say that if a fresh quarrying permit is issued, the conditions thereof will also be ensured by the Geologist. Inasmuch as, it has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P7 quarrying permit has expired, while issuing fresh quarrying permit, the additional conditions recommended by the N.I.R.M in the report shall also be incorporated, the adherence of which shall also be monitored by the Geologist. Violation, if any, of the conditions should necessarily result in prompt action in accordance with law. This Writ Petition is allowed as above.