JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. 1. These Writ Petitions are related to excavation and transporting ordinary earth by one Sri Scaria who is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.431/2016. The W.P.(C) No.1209/2016 is filed by the local resident challenging environmental clearance certificate issued to Sri Scaria. 2. The W.P.(C) No. 1466/2016 is filed by another local resident seeking implementation of stop memo Issued by the Local Panchayath. 3. W.P.(C) No. 431/2016 is filed by Sri Scaria himself challenging the stop memo issued by the Local Panchayath. Admittedly Sri Scaria obtained environmental clearance. Based on the environmental clearance he is extracting the ordinary earth from the site. 4. The W.P.(C) No. 1209/2016 is filed challenging environmental clearance stating that environmental clearance is issued without public consultation as contemplated under the notification of Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 14.9.2006. According to the writ petitioner therein notification clearly contemplates a public consultation before issuance of environmental clearance. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to refer the challenge made by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1209/2016. 5. The notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 14.9.2006 contemplates the different stages of a project evaluation for the purpose of granting environmental clearance, it refers public consultation as process by which local affected persons would be consulted for the purpose of assessment of environmental impact to the project proposal. However it further refers in certain categories of activities it is not required to have a public consultation. Here in this case Sri Scaria's activity comes under the category B2 as the extent of area for excavation is less than 5 hectares. Therefore the stand of Sri Scaria is that there is no requirement of public consultation. 6. I am also is of the view that since project of Sri Scaria is coming under the B2 category there is no requirement of public consultation. Therefore challenge based on the absence of public consultation before granting environmental clearance is unsustainable. Accordingly it is declined. 7. The next challenge is based on W.P.(C) No. 1466/2016. In this case the petitioner seeks implementation of the order of the Local Panchayath, prohibiting the excavation. The Local Panchayath in this order found that any excavation in the area would results in drying up of the water sources and therefore it cannot be permitted. Accordingly it is declined. 7. The next challenge is based on W.P.(C) No. 1466/2016. In this case the petitioner seeks implementation of the order of the Local Panchayath, prohibiting the excavation. The Local Panchayath in this order found that any excavation in the area would results in drying up of the water sources and therefore it cannot be permitted. It is to be noted that Sri Scaria is operating based on the environmental clearance. Certainly, the Environmental Authority is having expertise to take any view in the matter of drying up of source of the water. Panchayath cannot take independent decision to over rule the clearance granted by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. Therefore this Court is of the view that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Panchayath to issue such order. However the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 14602016 has further grievance in the matter. According to the petitioner Sri Scaria is excavating ordinary earth in violation of the environmental clearance and permission. Certainly this is a matter requires an enquiry by the Geologist. If Sri Scaria is violating any of the conditions in the environmental clearance or permit, the Geologist shall take necessary action against the operation. Therefore the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1466/2016 is relegated to approach the Geologist complaining illegal actions of the Sri Scaria. If any complaint is filed by the above writ petitioner, certainly the Geologist shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law. The W.P.(C) No. 431/2016 is filed by Sri Scaria challenging stop memo. In view of the observation and findings already adverted as above this Court is of the view that the stop memo is unsustainable, accordingly stop memo is set aside. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 431/2016 submits that his permit has been expired, pending Writ Petition. This Court is of the view that the Geologist shall consider the request for renewal in the light of environmental clearance without any delay. However before granting renewal necessarily the Geologist shall ensure that Sri Scaria shall strictly follow the conditions of environmental clearance issued by the authority. If permit is renewed necessary O.A. form shall be given to Sri Scaria.