Judgment : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Respondents 3 and 5 in W.P.(C) No.11730 of 2013 are the appellants. Writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent in the appeal. Following are the prayers sought by the writ petitioner: "(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to run the industrial unit by name M/s.Vallithottathil Industries on a trial basis initially at least for a period of 2 weeks so as to enable the 4th respondent to measure the noise and dust levels at nearby residential locations. (b) Declare that Ext.P13 resolution is without power or jurisdiction and the same is liable to be ignored. (c) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 4th respondent to submit a report on the noise and dust levels at nearby residential locations, after the unit commences its trial run. (d) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the D & O license for the year 2013-2014." 2. Briefly put, the case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was as follows: Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment of this Court petitioner completed all the necessary works and complied with the directions issued by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P8 and thereafter submitted Ext.P10 application as early as on 08.04.2013 requesting to renew the license. Though more than three weeks have elapsed after submission of Ext.P10 the 2nd respondent has so far not chosen to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct a trial run of the unit. Tis is per se illegal. This is more so in the light of the opinion of the 4th respondent as reflected in Ext.P12 prepared pursuant to the joint inspection conducted on 18.04.2013 by respondents 2 and 4. Though the exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the question of renewal of license is with the 2nd respondent in terms of Section 236(7) and (8) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the 2nd respondent unnecessarily and without jurisdiction placed the issue of renewal of license before the committee of the 1st respondent Panchayat. Though the exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the question of renewal of license is with the 2nd respondent in terms of Section 236(7) and (8) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the 2nd respondent unnecessarily and without jurisdiction placed the issue of renewal of license before the committee of the 1st respondent Panchayat. The committee of the 1st respondent Panchayat thereafter passed Ext.P13 resolution which is totally without sanction of law. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P14 letter requesting the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct the trial run of the unit to enable the 4th respondent to assess the noise and dust levels at nearby residential locations the 2nd respondent is pleading helplessness in the matter on account of the intervention of the committee members of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat. The petitioner, as already pointed out has invested more than Rupees five lakhs for complying with the directions in Ext.P8. The unit is set up on funds borrowed from various financial institutions and the outstanding loan amount comes to more than `50 lakhs. The unit in question has been functioning from 1996 onwards without giving room for any complaint from any quarters. More over the 4th respondent has clearly opined that the control measures provided by M/s.Vallithottathil Industries is satisfactory to attain the noise and dust standards at nearby residential locations. In this view of the matter the 2nd respondent is obliged in law to have permitted the petitioner to conduct a trial run of the unit for at least a period of two weeks so as to enable the 4th respondent to measure the noise and dust levels at nearby residential locations. Ext.P14 request made by the petitioner has not evoked any response. Therefore the petitioner is justified in requesting this Court to require the 2nd respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to run the metal crusher unit (both primary and secondary) at least for a period of two weeks and this Court may further be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to monitor the noise and dust levels at nearby residential locations after the petitioner's unit commences its trial run and submit a report to the 2nd respondent. 3. Counter affidavits and reply affidavits were filed. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: "1. 3. Counter affidavits and reply affidavits were filed. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: "1. The petitioner is directed to comply with all the conditions contained in Exhibit P5 consent as well as the defects noted in Exhibit R(1)(a) report of the second respondent within a period of seven days from today. 2. After complying with the said requirements, the petitioner shall intimate the second respondent Secretary of such completion, in writing. The second respondent shall on receipt of intimation from the petitioner, conduct an inspection of the crusher unit of the petitioner for the purpose of ensuring that the petitioner has complied with all the conditions in Exhibit P5 consent as well as the defects noted in Exhibit R1(a). Such inspection shall be conducted at the discretion of the Secretary with the assistance of the Environmental Engineer, if necessary. Such inspection shall be conducted, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one week of the receipt of the intimation from the petitioner. 3. The second respondent shall consider the application for renewal of the petitioner's licence if he has complied with all the requirements and shall pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of ten days of such inspection. The order shall also be properly communicated to the petitioner." 4. We heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the Panchayat and the Pollution Control Board. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in giving the directions. It is submitted that pursuant to the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, a decision was taken by the Secretary of the Panchayat rejecting the application for renewal. The said order was produced as Ext.P17 in the writ petition. However Ext.P17 was not challenged. Question is posed as to how the reliefs granted could have been done without setting aside a decision taken that too pursuant to the direction of the learned Single Judge. No doubt the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st respondent has complied with all the conditions except the one to which he has given reply to. No doubt the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st respondent has complied with all the conditions except the one to which he has given reply to. Various contentions have been urged by parties to which we need not advert to in view of the course we intend to adopt in this case. 6. We are of the view that without having challenged Ext.P17 which is a decision taken no doubt pursuant to the direction of the learned Single Judge, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to have given the directions. When there is an order against the party without challenging the same, it is not appropriate for the learned Single Judge to have ignored it (Ext.P17) and proceed to pass further orders. There is no dispute that an appeal will lie under Section 276(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act against the decision of the Secretary before the Panchayat. 7. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge be set aside and allow the 1st respondent to challenge Ext.P17 before the 2nd respondent Panchayat within a time limit and also to fix a time limit for the disposal of the same with opportunity of hearing to the parties. Accordingly we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.11730 of 2013 and dispose of the appeal further as follows: We record the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent that the 1st respondent will file an appeal against Ext.P17 in proper form before the Panchayat Committee and that the appeal will be filed on or before 19.11.2013 and a copy of the same will be served on the counsel for the appellants on the same day. On that basis we further direct that the appeal will be taken up by the Committee and disposed of within ten days from 22.11.2013. In order to allow the Committee to dispose of the appeal within the said time limit without formerly issuing notice to the affected parties, we further direct that the appellants and 1st respondent will appear before the Panchayat Committee on 22.11.2013 at 11 a.m. A decision will be taken on the appeal within ten days from 22.11.2013, in accordance with law. All pending interlocutory applications are closed.