ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. The petitioners are before this Court seeking that the respondents be directed to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 13/14-3-2014 at Annexure-H series to the petitions. 2. The petitioners herein were running the Stone Crushing Units in Kodagu District. In view of the decision rendered in the case of Obayya Pujary and Others v. The Member Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore and Others (W.P. No. 17078 of 1997, disposed of on 10-7-1998), 1999(3) Kar. L.J. 651 (DB), AIR 1999 Kant. 157 (DB), the petitioners would not be entitled to run their units in the place where it was located. In view of the directions to relocate such Stone Crushing Units, to regulate the same, the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (`Act 2011' for short) has been enacted. In view of the provisions contained in the said Act, the stone crushers are required to obtain licence and the Licensing Authority is required to declare the safer zone on certification from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. The petitioners therefore claiming to be entitled to relocate themselves have filed necessary applications seeking licence in that regard. Since the consideration in that regard has not been made, the petitioners have also submitted the representation dated 13-3-2014 to the Office of the first respondent. Since the representations submitted by the petitioners have not received consideration at the hands of the respondents, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned Government Advocate based on the instructions received would submit that the land to locate the crushing units in safer zone has been identified and the first respondent through the letter dated 9-5-2013 has intimated the KIADB in that regard for the purpose of forming the layout. Though such communication has been addressed, no further progress is indicated on the part of the respondents or the KIADB. In a circumstance where the obligation is on the Licensing Authority, the action in that regard to enable relocation of the stone crushing unit is to be initiated by the first respondent. 4. Therefore at this juncture, all that can be directed in the instant petitions is to direct the first respondent to take note of the representations that have been made by the petitioners at Annexure-H series. 4. Therefore at this juncture, all that can be directed in the instant petitions is to direct the first respondent to take note of the representations that have been made by the petitioners at Annexure-H series. In that light, take into consideration the provisions of Act 2011 and take appropriate steps to pursue the matter with regard to the proposal that had been sent to the KIADB and take necessary action in this regard. The manner in which the first respondent has proceeded further in the matter shall be made known to the petitioners with specific details regarding the same in an expeditious manner, but not later than two months from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the first respondent. 5. Needless to mention that if in the meanwhile, the KIADB has taken any fresh steps in the matter, the first respondent shall in that event take steps to consider the applications of the petitioners for grant of licence in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act 2011. In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of.