Sheriff A.H. v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:-** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2016/7TH SRAVANA, 1938** ## **W.P.(C).No.14261 of 2016 (G)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):-------------** **SHERIFF A.H., S/O HYDROSE, AGED 50 YEARS, ETTUKATTIL VEEDU,P.O., EDATHALA NORTH, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN:683564.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.M.P.SHERIN SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH** **RESPONDENT(S):-** ## **--------------** ## **1. THE STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT (NOW WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, PIN:682030.** - **Addl. 3. A.M.SAINUDHEEN, S/O MOIDEEN, ALAPPURATH HOUSE, PERIPARA, PEZHAKKAPPILLY .P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA-686674.** *** [ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9.6.2016 IN I.A.NO.8050 OF 2016].** - **** Addl. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,** **PVIP DIVISION NO.II, THOTTAKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA-683108.** - **** [ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.06.2016 IN W.P.(C)].** **R1, R2 & ADDL.R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MAJOJ P.KUNJACHAN. ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2016, THE COURT ON 29-07-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-** ## **W.P(C).No.14261 of 2016(G)** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED 10.3.2008 A PERIOD OF 12 YEARS COMMENCING FROM 10.3.2008 TO 9.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 27.2.2008 GRANTING QUARRYING LEASE.** **EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE CURRENT QUARRYING LICENSE DATED 28.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED 29.3.2016, WHICH IS VALID UP TO 30.6.2018, ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONERS QUARRY.** - **EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE CURRENT EXPLOSIVE LICENSE DATED 30.3.2016 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 31.3.2020, ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.S3.13/2009 DATED 10.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER P.V.I.P. SECTION PERUMBAVOOR TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.1.2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.31236 OF 2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT TAKEN BY THE ADM IN THE PERSONAL HEARING FROM THE PARTIES ON 9.6.2014.** - **EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2015 IN WPC NO.36841/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P10:A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.8.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PVIP DIVISION NO.2.** - **EXHIBIT P11:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PVIP DIVISION NO.2.** - **EXHIBIT P12:A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.9.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, P.V.I.P. DIVISION NO.2.** - **EXHIBIT P13:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26.10.2015 GIVEN BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PVIP SUB DIVISION NO.1, TO THE PETITIONER.** **W.P(C).No.14261 of 2016(G)** ## **- 2 -** **EXHIBIT P14:A TURE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.10.2015 GIVEN BY THE GEOLOGIST (STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER), DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P15:A TRUE COPY FO THE CHELAN RECEIPT DATED 27.3.2015 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF RS.14 LAKHS.** **EXHIBIT P16:TRUE COPIES OF THE CHELANS DATED 28.3.2015, 22.6.2015 AND 28.9.2015 REMITTING AN AMOUNT OF 12 LAKHS TO THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT P17:A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY TO THE GOVERNMENT SECRETARY (INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT). EXHIBIT P18:A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P19: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY DATRED 20.08.2014 TRANSFERRING THE LEASE IN MY NAME. EXHIBIT P20: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 04.09.2014 TRANSFERRING THE QUARRYING LEASE IN MY FAVOUR.** **EXHIBIT P21: A TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION DATED 13.08.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE SAID MINE MANAGER SHRI.MEHABOOB BASHA BEFORE THE GEOLOGIST.** **EXHIBIT P22: A TRUE COPY OF THE MINING MATE'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY ISSUED UNDER THE METALLIFEROUS MINES REGULATIONS TO THE SAID MEHABOOB BASHA ALONG WITH THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY. EXHIBIT P23: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.02.2015 GIVEN BY THE PAYIPRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO ONE P.E.SHAJY.** **EXHIBIT P24: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.01.2015 GIVEN BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PVIP SUB DIVISION, PERUMBAVOOR TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PVIP DIVISION, ALUVA. EXHIBIT P25: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.01.2015 GIVEN BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PVIP DIVISION, ALUVA TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P26: A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 29.04.2016 APPROVING THE MINING PLAN OF THE PETITIONER'S QUARRY. EXHIBIT P27: A TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 20.08.2014 TO 31.03.2016 IN RESPECT OF THE QUARRY OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DT.15.4.2016.** **EXHIBIT P28: A TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENCE DATED 05.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE PAYIPRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER.** **W.P(C).No.14261 of 2016(G)** ## **- 3 -** **EXHIBIT P29: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST TO THE GOVERNMENT SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT.** **EXHIBIT P30: A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KSEB LTD. TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P31: A TRUE COPY OF THE CHELAN RECEIPT DATED 18.06.2016 REMITTING RS.803300/- [EIGHT LAKHS THREE THOUSAND AND THREE HUNDRED) IN THE FEDERAL BANK.** **EXHIBIT P32: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL BANK FORWARDING THE BANK GUARANTEE TO THE KSEB LTD. ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER'S CRUSHER UNIT. EXHIBIT P33: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.04.2014 IN W.A. NO.509/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P34: TRUE COPY OF CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DT.28.06.2010.** **EXHIBIT P35: TRUE COPY OF RENEWED CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 29.04.2014 VALID UPTO 22.11.2014.** **EXHIBIT P36: TRUE COPY OF RENEWED CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 31.10.2014 VALID UPTO 09.02.2015.** **EXHIBIT P37: TRUE COPY OF RENEWED CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 7.4.2015 VALID UPTO 31.03.2016.** **EXHIBIT P38: TRUE COPY OF MINING PLAN.** ## **ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-** **----------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT R3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NUMBER A7-2535/2013 ISSUED BY the EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.V.I.P. DIVISION NO.2, ALUWA DATED 12.12.2013.** **EXHIBIT R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NUMBER A3-200/2014 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.V.I.P.DIVISION NO.2, ALUVA DATED 1.4.2014. EXHIBIT R3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER UNDER SC 2/RTI/18/2011-12 P10 (SC2/1274 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINES SAFETY DATED 8.6.2011. EXHIBIT R3(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO D/O/E/4184/E2/14 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST DT.17.9.2014.** **- 4 -** **W.P(C).No.14261 of 2016(G)** **EXHIBIT R3(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.26409/2014 OF THIS COURT DATED 14.10.2014.** **EXHIBIT R3(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.216/14-15/DOE/4805/E2/2014 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST DATED 31.10.2014.** **EXHIBIT R3(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.4632/2014 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DT.27.08.2014.** **EXHIBIT R3(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 11.11.14.** **EXHIBIT R3(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT IN COMPLAINT NO.403/15 OF THE LOKAYUKTHA DATED 1.9.15.** **EXHIBIT R3(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE GRAMASABHA MEETING DATED 5.1.14.** **EXHIBIT R3(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION SUBMITTED SRI.T.P.SEEDI DATED 5.1.2014.** **EXHIBIT R3(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT DATED 22.1.2014.** **EXHIBIT R3(l) A TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE IN THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE PAYIPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DT.12.12.2013.** **EXHIBIT R3(m) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.31236/13 DT.22.1.14.** **EXHIBIT R3(n) A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST DATED 9.1.2014.** **EXHIBIT R3(o) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PAYPRA PANCHAYAT DATED 2.12.2013.** **ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:-----------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.05.2015 REJECTING THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER.** **Vku/[ true copy ]** ## K. Vinod Chandran, J ---------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.14261 of 2016-G ---------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of July, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner challenge Exhibit P18 order of the District Collector, which has directed stoppage of the quarrying operation conducted on the strength of Exhibit P1 quarrying lease issued to one P.M.Basheer and transferred to the petitioner as per Exhibit P19 proceedings of the Director of Mining & Geology. The original lessee is said to be the brother-in-law of the petitioner, who obtained Exhibit P1 lease from the Department of Mining and Geology to carry out quarrying operations in the land owned by the petitioner. The lease has been granted by Exhibit P2 order and the petitioner also was conducting a metal crusher unit in the property, as is evident from Exhibit P3. The consent issued by the Pollution Control Board for operation of the quarry had been varied and the said modified consent is valid till 30.06.2018, as is seen from Exhibit P4. The Explosive Licence is produced at Exhibit P5. WP(C) No.14261 of 2016 - 2 - 2. The petitioner was earlier issued with Exhibit P6 stop memo by the Assistant Engineer, Periyar Valley Irrigation Project [for brevity “PVIP”] for reason of an aqueduct, under the PVIP, having suffered damages resulting in leakage of water for reason of the blasting operations carried on in the quarry. The petitioner was before this Court with W.P.(C) No.31236 of 2013, which was disposed of by Exhibit P7 directing the District Collector, Ernakulam to finalise the proceedings. The District Collector issued stop memo dated 24.11.2015, which was challenged in a further writ petition, numbered as W.P.(C) 36841 of 2015 and produced therein as Exhibit P19. The communication of the District Collector to the Geologist, Mining and Geology Department dated 21.11.2015 [produced as Exhibit P18 in that writ petition] was also challenged. By Exhibit P9 judgment, produced in the present writ petition, it was found that the directions in Exhibit P7 was not complied with and, hence, the District Collector was directed to take appropriate decision within six weeks and the impugned orders were quashed. The said proceedings resulted in Exhibit P18 order being passed, which is challenged by the petitioner. WP(C) No.14261 of 2016 - 3 - 3. A reading of Exhibit P8 would indicate that the inspection of the site by the Additional District Magistrate revealed that the aqueduct is situated within 250 meters of the quarry. It was also reported that the wall of the aqueduct was damaged at many places and it was reported that in all probability the damage caused could be, by reason of the construction being age-old. It was noticed that the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department had written to the Additional Chief Secretary that the aqueduct was within 250 meters of the quarry and in such circumstance, there ought to have been a No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Irrigation Department. The Chief Engineer had also indicated that though the damage caused to the structure of aqueduct was by reason of its age, noticing the undertaking of the petitioner that any further damage caused due to the quarrying operations would be repaired at the cost and consequence of the petitioner himself; opined that an NOC could be issued. However, the Government refused to grant a NOC , since even if the existing damages were rectified, due to the continued operation of the quarry there would be damages and loss caused to the irrigation work. It was considering WP(C) No.14261 of 2016 - 4 - these facts that Exhibit P18 order was issued by the District Collector. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that even going by the report of the Irrigation Department, the age-old aqueduct was in a state of disrepair, only for reason of passage of time and the quarrying operation had nothing to do with the damage caused. The contention raised on behalf of the Government that Section 40 of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003 [for brevity “Act of 2003”] prohibits mining and quarrying operation within a radius of one kilometre of an aqueduct, without written permission of the Irrigation Officer, is argued to be not applicable for reason of the Collector having not notified the boundaries of the irrigation work, as is required under sub-section (1) of Section 40. 5. When the matter was heard on an earlier occasion, it was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader and the additional 3[rd] respondent impleaded, that there was also a check dam situated within 10 meters of the quarry. This is sought to be refuted by the learned Senior Counsel on the basis of Exhibits P23 WP(C) No.14261 of 2016 - 5 - to P25 produced along with the counter affidavit to the impleading petition, respectively issued by the Panchayat, Assistant Executive Engineer, PVIP and Executive Engineer, PVIP. 6. The additional 3[rd] respondent has impleaded himself claiming to be the voice of the local people in and around the quarry, who were aggrieved with the operations carried on for reason of the damage caused to the residential buildings, the pollution emanating from the operations, the indiscriminate plying of vehicles and also impact on the environment. The additional 3[rd] respondent has listed out a number of grounds, indicated from (a) to (n), in his affidavit, which, according to the learned Counsel, are in addition to the existence of an aqueduct within 250 meters and a check dam within 10 meters. The learned Counsel would also place reliance on a number of decisions of this Court to urge that the quarry carried on by the petitioner would be a “mine” as defined under the Mines Act, 1952 and the operations would be regulated by the said Act as also the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961; as has been held in _**Rajmohan Nair And Others v. State of Kerala And Others**_ **[ILR 1997 (1) Ker. 268].** The right to life WP(C) No.14261 of 2016 - 6 - guaranteed under Article 21 and the restriction insofar as a quarrying operation affecting such right is urged on the basis of _**Thilakan v. Circle Inspector of Police**_ **[2008 (1) KLT 141].** The authority of the District Collector to issue orders regulating or even stopping the mining operations is projected on the basis of _**Gokuldas v. Geologist**_ **[2009 (3) KLT 924].** It is also contended that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Deepak Kumar**_ _**v. State of Haryana**_ **[(2012) 4 SCC 629],** which has been elaborately considered in _**All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala**_ **[2015 (2) KLT 78]** also mandates an environmental clearance under the Environmental Impact Assessment notifications [for brevity “EIA notifications”], which the petitioner does not have. 7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would take serious objection to the additional grounds raised by the additional 3[rd] respondent, pointing out that the scope of the writ petition filed by the petitioner is the challenge made to Exhibit P18 and an additional respondent cannot seek to raise the grounds so raised; which have not been considered by the District WP(C) No.14261 of 2016 - 7 - Collector in Exhibit P18 and this Court also would not look into the same. The learned senior counsel would also argue that the additional respondent is a former employee who seeks to wreck vengeance on the petitioner for reason of loss of employment. 8. This Court has to accept the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel insofar as the various other grounds raised by the additional 3[rd] respondent in his affidavit filed in support of the impleading petition and also the reply affidavit. It is to be noticed that the writ petition is not of the objector and it is the quarry owner who has come before this Court challenging Exhibit P18 order of the District Collector. If the District Collector's order is not sustainable, then the objector/additional respondent or any from amongst the public could take their remedies with respect to the other grounds before the District Collector or before the appropriate authority. However, as of now the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226, invoked by the instant writ petition, is confined to the challenge against Exhibit P18 order. Even the ground raised of a check-dam existing, within 10 meters of the quarry, has not been looked into by the District Collector. There is WP(C) No.14261 of 2016 ## - 8 - also considerable dispute, fuelled further by the contrary stances taken by the authorities themselves as to whether there is a checkdam, or whether its a bridge or a check-dam now in disrepair. This Court however is not satisfied that the additional respondent is motivated for extraneous reasons since, as pointed out by the learned Counsel, the additional respondent had been agitating the cause before the various authorities. There were also writ petitions filed, in earlier instances against the very same quarry, when the petitioner did not raise such a contention. 9. Exhibit P18 order is only on the ground that there is no written permission obtained from the Irrigation Officer under Section 40 of the Act of 2003. Section 40 is extracted hereunder: - **“40. Mining or quarrying near certain works etc:-** - (1) The Collector shall, in consultation with the Irrigation Officer, by notification, specify the boundaries of an irrigation work. - (2) Not withstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall, without the written permission of the Irrigation Officer, conduct mining or quarrying operation using explosives within a radius of one kilometre of any bridge, dam, check dam or any other work, structure - 9 - WP(C) No.14261 of 2016 or construction, owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, a local authority or any other authority. - (3) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of permission under sub-section (2) may, within thirty days from the date of receipt by him of the communication of such refusal, file an appeal to the Collector and the Collector shall decide the appeal within sixty days from the date of receipt of the appeal and his decision thereon shall be final: Provided that an appeal filed after the expiry of thirty days may be admitted by the Collector if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.” 10. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the aqueduct referred to is an irrigation work, as defined in the Act, and such a work is not referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 40. The various structures as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 40 has to be considered _ejusdem generis_ and any 'other work' could only mean a bridge, dam or check dam or a similar construction. Alternatively it is also contended that if at all “aqueduct” comes within the definition of “any other work”, then there is a mandate on WP(C) No.14261 of 2016 - 10 - the District Collector to specify the boundaries of such work in consultation with the Irrigation Officer, as is seen from sub-section (1); in which event only the prohibition under sub-section (2) would be applicable. 11. Sub-section (1) of Section 40 clothes the District Collector with the power to specify the boundaries of the irrigation work. An “irrigation work” as defined under Section 2(w), which definition need not be extracted, refers to a number of structures/constructions which are intended at setting up, aiding and providing irrigation. The aqueduct under the PVIP through which water is supplied to the general public of the locality, is definitely an “irrigation work” coming within the definition in the Act. While sub-section (1) empowers the Collector to specify the boundaries of an irrigation work, it has to be noticed that the distance rule as noticed in sub-section (2) does not speak of a prohibition only when such a notification is made. Sub-section (2) does not even speak of boundaries of an irrigation work and prohibits conduct of “ _mining or quarrying operation using explosives within a radius of one kilometre of any bridge, dam,_ WP(C) No.14261 of 2016 ## - 11 - _check dam or any other work, structure or construction, owned, controlled or maintained by the Government, a local authority or any other authority_ ”. Hence, if a boundary is provided with respect to an irrigation work; reading sub-sections (1) and (2) together, the prohibitory distance would have to be measured from such boundary. If not, the prohibitory distance should be measured from the structure or construction itself. On such interpretation, this Court cannot countenance the contention of the petitioner that without a notification, specifying the boundary of an irrigation work, no prohibition can be made under sub-section (2) or a requirement insisted, of a written permission from the Irrigation Officer, for carrying on such mining or quarrying operation. 12. The rule of _ejusdem generis_ also would not come to the aid of the petitioner, since the prohibition is from using explosives within a radius of one kilometre of a bridge, dam, check dam or any other work. What is included in the definition under Section 2(w) are canals, field channels, reservoirs and such like constructions which carry water or store it. Bridge as normally understood would be one connecting land separated by water and WP(C) No.14261 of 2016 - 12 - the other two are reservoirs for storing water, with purpose _inter alia_ of supply of drinking water, irrigation, both essential to sustenance of life and generation of power a prerequisite of today's world. An aqueduct which supplies water to the general public for irrigation and to provide drinking water can only be considered to be a work coming within the Section since the enactment itself deals with irrigation and water conservation; an integral part of which are the reservoirs and the supply lines. Interpreting the provision so, this Court does not see any infirmity in the impugned order of the District Collector. It is made clear that this Court has not considered the other aspects raised by the additional respondent, since those were never considered by the first authority, the District Collector. Those grounds are left open to be agitated by the additional respondent, if need so arise. The writ petition is dismissed, sustaining the impugned order; without any order as to costs. **Sd/-** K.Vinod Chandran Judge. Vku/- [ true copy ]