JUDGMENT Mr. N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR, J. 1. The present writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4.10.2013 made in W.P. No. 32045 of 2012, wherein the appellant has challenged the rejection of license to quarry in Survey Nos.1033/A1A, 1033/C1, 1034/A1 and 1035/3 to an extent of 3.57.0 Hectares, which was earlier granted for a period from 29.9.2006 to 28.9.2011. On the expiry of the earlier license period, the appellant has filed a fresh application, as there was no renewal clause in the original license condition. 2. The said application was submitted on the ground that there was a delay in commencing the quarrying operations and heavy bank loans were obtained and a lot of persons were employed to do the quarrying operations and if license is granted for a further period of five years, the Government will get more revenue. Since the said application was not considered, the appellant earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 3740 of 2012 and in the said writ petition, an order was passed on 20.3.2013, directing the first respondent herein to consider the application of the appellant and pass orders on merits, after hearing the second respondent, the local body. After the said direction was issued, the first respondent has passed an order dated 30.10.2012, rejecting the request of the appellant for grant of license for further period of five years. 3. The first respondent rejected the request stating that an objection was raised by the second respondent to grant quarry license to the appellant on the ground that quarrying work will affect the new crematorium, which is under construction within 100 metres from the above quarry site, which will cause danger to the public, while assembling in the crematorium. In view of the public safety and welfare, the application seeking license for a further period of five years cannot be granted. In the said order itself, it is further stated that if the appellant is aggrieved, he can file an appeal before the Director of Geology and Mining within a period of 30 days, in terms of Rule 36(C)2 of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. In the said order itself, it is further stated that if the appellant is aggrieved, he can file an appeal before the Director of Geology and Mining within a period of 30 days, in terms of Rule 36(C)2 of The Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959. The said order of the first respondent was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition in W.P. No. 32045 of 2012 and the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition by holding that the quarrying site is within the prohibited area and hence, the rejection of the license by the first respondent cannot be found fault with. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) deals with the general restrictions in respect of quarrying operations and the prohibition to issue license. As per the said Rule, the lessees whose quarries lie within a radius of 300 metres from the “inhabited site” shall undertake blasting operations only after getting permission of the Director of Mines Safety. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the explanation to Rule 36 deals with “public road”, “village road”, “stone” and “inhabited site”. The objection of the second respondent for grant of license to the appellant to the above said quarrying area is not valid as the public safety is not stated as one of the criteria to be considered while granting license to quarry. In short, the word public safety is not mentioned in the said Rule. However, the first respondent travelled beyond the scope of the Rules. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the rejection of license is on the ground that crematorium is now established within 100 metres by the second respondent and if license is granted, public safety will be affected. He has further submitted that public safety is the paramount consideration of the first respondent and hence, the objection raised by the second respondent was accepted. Further, for putting up the crematorium, permission was granted by the Planning Authority and therefore, it comes within the definition of the building. 6. He has further submitted that public safety is the paramount consideration of the first respondent and hence, the objection raised by the second respondent was accepted. Further, for putting up the crematorium, permission was granted by the Planning Authority and therefore, it comes within the definition of the building. 6. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent also supported the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and submitted that the order has been passed bearing in mind the public safety and it was also upheld by the learned Single Judge, and hence, it need not be interfered with. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The issue that has to be considered is, as to whether the crematorium will come within the definition of ‘inhabited site’ or not. The words ‘inhabited site’ are defined in Rule 36 (1) (iii) of the said Rules and it reads as follows: “(iii) ‘inhabited site’ shall mean a village site or town site or a house site as referred to in the revenue records or a house site or layout approved by a Local Body or Town or Country or Metropolitan Planning Authority, where the said Body or Authority is created under a statute and empowered to approve such an area as a house site or lay-out area”. On a perusal of the above definition, it is clear that crematorium is not coming within the meaning of inhabited site or lay-out area. It is common knowledge that crematoriums are situated outside the residential area and not within the residential area. Hence, the reason stated by the first respondent that because of the existence of the crematorium, license to quarry could not be granted to the appellant, cannot be sustained. Further, with regard to the safety of the public to be assembled in the crematorium, the same is not one of the grounds stated in the Rules and the order for rejecting the license. In such view of the matter, the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of the first respondent dated 30.10.2012 cannot be sustained. 9. Further, with regard to the safety of the public to be assembled in the crematorium, the same is not one of the grounds stated in the Rules and the order for rejecting the license. In such view of the matter, the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of the first respondent dated 30.10.2012 cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to consider the issue afresh after hearing the appellant as well as the second respondent and pass fresh orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that as on date, the appellant is not having any license to quarry. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to carry on any quarrying operation by virtue of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Appeal allowed.