Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer of writ in the nature of prohibition against respondents 1 to 4 from granting approval to the layout (house site) submitted by the fifth respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Proprietor of Saravana Blue Metal, who owns land to the extent of 2.88 acres at S.F.No. 281/4, Anna Nagar, Thoppampalayam Village, Sathy Taluk, Erode District. The petitioner is running a stone quarry on his land, which is duly registered with the Department of Industries and Commerce. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the licence granted to the petitioners stone quarry is renewed from time to time. As per Rule 26(1) of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, no lease can be granted to quarry stone within 300 meters from any inhabitation. 4. As per Rule 36(1) of the said Rule, no new layout, building plans falling within 300 meters from any quarry can be given approval by any agency unless prior clearance of the Director of Geology and Mining is obtained. 5. The case of the petitioner is that in view of Rule 36(1-A)(c), no person can be granted permission to construct the house within 300 meters from any quarry. 6. The case of the petitioner further is that in violation of the Rules of Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, the fifth respondent is developing a lay out plan, for which he has sought necessary permission from the respondents 1 to 4. 7. This writ petition is totally misconceived. This Court cannot issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents 1 to 4 from discharging their duties. The respondents 1 to 4 are expected to act in accordance with law while granting planning permission and to see whether the person is entitled to planning permission or not, and also to see whether he has fulfilled requisite condition. 8. If any planning permission is granted in violation of Rules and Regulations, it can always be challenged in accordance with law. It cannot be pre-assumed that the respondents 1 to 4 will act against the provisions of the Rules and Regulations while discharging their official duties. 8. If any planning permission is granted in violation of Rules and Regulations, it can always be challenged in accordance with law. It cannot be pre-assumed that the respondents 1 to 4 will act against the provisions of the Rules and Regulations while discharging their official duties. The plea of the petitioner is not only premature but the rules also show that there is no absolute ban to grant lay out plan, which can be done with the permission of Director of Geology and Mining. 9. There being no merit in the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. No costs.