JUDGMENT : The petitioners are residents in Ward No.2 of the Kaduthuruty Grama Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is essentially regarding the proposal of the 4th respondent who, according to the petitioners, intends to start a saw mill and a furniture manufacturing unit in the area. The apprehension of the petitioners is based on the fact that the father of the 4th respondent is conducting a saw mill and a furniture manufacturing unit at Appanchira, which is barely three kilometres away from the location where the 4th respondent is proposing to set up the furniture manufacturing unit. The petitioners apprehend that the respondent Panchayat will grant the 4th respondent a building permit and trade license for constructing the building, and thereafter, carrying on the aforesaid activity, without getting the necessary permissions/consent from the Pollution Control Board. It is the case of the petitioners in the writ petition that in property lying adjacent to the property purchased by the 4th respondent, there is a Jalanidhi Project under way and any pollution caused, on account of the activities of the 4th respondent, would endanger the project itself since, a pollution to the well from which water is drawn for the purposes of the project, would prejudicially affect persons like the petitioners, who are beneficiaries of the Jalanidhi project. In the writ petition, the prayer is for a direction to the 1st respondent not to grant any permission to the 4th respondent to start an industrial unit in the area, and further, for a direction to the 1st respondent to issue a stop memo preventing the 4th respondent from constructing any building for establishment of the wood furniture manufacturing unit. The writ petition was admitted on 27.01.2016 and by an interim order of the same date this Court directed that no license shall be issued to the 4th respondent by the 1st respondent to conduct a furniture unit, without obtaining orders from this Court. The said interim order continues to be in force even today. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Panchayat, wherein it is stated that the 4th respondent had submitted Ext.R1(a) application for a building permit. The said interim order continues to be in force even today. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent Panchayat, wherein it is stated that the 4th respondent had submitted Ext.R1(a) application for a building permit. It is stated that on receipt of the application, the Overseer LSGD inspected the site, took measurements, compared the same with the plan submitted and reported to the Panchayat that going by the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, the permit sought for by the 4th respondent could be granted. It is stated that, accordingly, a building permit was granted to the 4th respondent on 17.12.2015 and a copy of the permit is produced as Ext.R1(c). Referring to the proposal of the 4th respondent, it is stated that, Ext.R1(a) application is for a carpentry workshop in a building with a plinth area of 205.95 sq.metres. It is further stated that, inasmuch as the application was only for a building permit, the real nature of the unit and the activities proposed then could not be discernible from the application itself. It is only after the building number is alloted to the building after construction that the 4th respondent can submit an application for installation of machinery and for license and at that stage the respondent Panchayat would be looking into all the statutory requirements before granting the trade license. Referring to the D & O licensing Rules, it is stated that, the license can be granted by the Secretary of the Panchayat without No Objection Certificate from other agencies, if the horse power of the machinery proposed to be installed by the 4th respondent is less than 5 HP and non-polluting. It is also stated that, inasmuch as the respondent Panchayat is a Category II Panchayat, there is no demarcation of area such as industrial, residential etc. In substance, the counter affidavit of the respondent Panchayat states that the trade license to the 4th respondent would be granted only after complying with all the statutory requirements, and after ensuring that the 4th respondent has obtained all the necessary permits required in law for setting up the said unit. 3. In the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent, the circumstances leading to the filing of the application for building permit are narrated. 3. In the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent, the circumstances leading to the filing of the application for building permit are narrated. It is pointed out that, inasmuch as the Overseer of the Panchayat had already stated that the proposal of the respondent was in accordance with the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, there was no justification for stopping the works pursuant to the grant of building permit in favour of the 4th respondent. The counter affidavit also gives details of the machinery proposed to be installed in the premises to be constructed by the 4th respondent and reveals that the total horse power of the machinery would only be 4.5 HP. Refuting the averments in the writ petition, it is stated that the 4th respondent does not intend to convert the premises in to a saw mill which would cause pollution to the neighbourhood and the intention of the 4th respondent is only to start a furniture unit. The bona fides of the petitioners, in objecting to the commencement of the unit by the 4th respondent, as also in filing the writ petition are questioned by the 4th respondent in the counter affidavit. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Panchayat, the learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent . 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, the apprehension of the petitioners in the writ petition is essentially against a possible pollution that could be caused on account of the 4th respondent commencing operations in the furniture manufacturing unit that he proposes to set up in the locality. The facts in the writ petition, and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, would indicate that as of now the 4th respondent has only sought for and obtained a building permit for the purposes of constructing the building that would house the furniture manufacturing unit in future. While the building permit has been granted to the 4th respondent, on account of the interim order passed by this Court, construction activities of the said respondent have come to a stand still and have not been carried on since 27.01.2016. While the building permit has been granted to the 4th respondent, on account of the interim order passed by this Court, construction activities of the said respondent have come to a stand still and have not been carried on since 27.01.2016. At any rate, noticing that the apprehension of the petitioners is only with regard to a possible pollution that could arise consequent to any activity carried on by the 4th respondent in the premises under construction, I am of the view that, the apprehension of the petitioners can be allayed and the construction activities of the 4th respondent proceeded with by disposing the writ petition with the following directions:- (i). The 1st respondent Panchayat, while considering the application prefered by the 4th respondent under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is obliged to rule out the possibility of the proposed unit causing any nuisance or pollution in the area. This is more so when complaints have been received from persons in the locality, who apprehend that activities in the unit proposed by the 4th respondent would cause pollution to the well that is constructed as part of the Jalanidhi project of which the petitioners are beneficiaries. The obligation of the Panchayat under Section 233 (3), in the light of any objections raised by the members of the locality, would mandate that before any permission is granted for construction or setting up of the unit in question, an opinion is sought from the State Pollution Control Board as regards the possibility of any pollution being caused by the unit that is proposed to be set up. I am of the view that, it would be incumbent upon the respondent Panchayat to forward a copy of the proposal of the 4th respondent, with regard to the unit that he proposes to set up in the locality, to the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board, and get the comments of the said authority with regard to the possibility of a unit of that nature causing pollution in the area. Based on the opinion of the Environmental Engineer, the Secretary of the respondent Panchayat can take a decision with regard to the grant of permission to the 4th respondent to proceed with the construction activities. The interim order granted by this Court shall stand modified to the above extent. (ii). Based on the opinion of the Environmental Engineer, the Secretary of the respondent Panchayat can take a decision with regard to the grant of permission to the 4th respondent to proceed with the construction activities. The interim order granted by this Court shall stand modified to the above extent. (ii). The 4th respondent shall, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, forward the details of the unit that he proposes to establish, to the 1st respondent Panchayat and the latter, immediately on receipt of the same shall, along with copies of the complaints received from the persons in the locality, forward the proposal to the Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State pollution Control Board within a further period of one week from the date of receipt of the proposal from the 4th respondent. (iii). The Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board shall, within two weeks thereafter, report to the 1st respondent Panchayat on the possibility of a unit as proposed by the 4th respondent causing pollution in the locality. In the event of the Environmental Engineer finding that the unit as proposed would cause pollution, then the Environmental Engineer shall also suggest the remedial measures that would have to be taken by the 4th respondent to ensure that the unit is a non-polluting one. (iv). The Secretary of the 1st respondent Panchayat shall, immediately on receipt of the report from the Environmental Engineer, consider the same and act on any application submitted by the 4th respondent for trade license by taking into account the consents, permissions, required under the various statutes, as also the report of the Environmental Engineer aforesaid, and pass orders on the application submitted by the 4th respondent, thereafter. The writ petition is disposed as above.