A Division Bench, comprising Justices P Jyothimani and P Devadass, said, "Law is well settled that when two views are possible and the authority who is an expert has taken one view, it is not for the Court to substitute it with another view under any circumstance."
Holding that the matter did not warrant any interference from the Court, the bench dismissed the petition in its order on August 31.
The court observed that when the statutory body acts something in accordance with law, "presumption is always in favour of the body unless it is established that there is a malafide intention or illegality."
"...This Court does not have expertise to come to a conclusion as to whether these requirements are necessary either for the purpose of Initial Fuel Loading or for the purpose of its subsequent operation," it said.
However, the bench said "as per the undertaking given by AERB, the recommendations which are to be complied with, are to be complied with by NPCIL in accordance with law and NPCIL shall scrupulously follow the same."
Petitioner G Sundarrajan had sought a direction from the Court to declare that the clearance granted by AERB for 'Initial Fuel Loading' and 'First Approach to Criticality' of first unit of KNPP on August 10, as null and void.
In another order on August 31, the court dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the Indo-Russian joint venture, saying its two units did not suffer from any infirmity for want of approvals and rejected safety fears as "unfounded".
