JUDGMENT : Hrishikesh Roy, J. Heard Sri.Philip J.Vettickattu, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Sri. S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, the learned Standing Counsel for Koppam Grama Panchayat. 2. The appellant is the writ petitioner and he is aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.01.2019 in W.P.(C) No.15914 of 2018 Malabar Granites v. Secretary, Koppam Grama Panchayat). That case was filed seeking quashing of the communication dated 13.04.2019 (Ext.P9) of the Secretary of the Koppam Grama Panchayat to the petitioner, who applied for renewal of D & O licence for operating the crusher unit, to the effect that they are required to furnish the No Objection Certificates from the Fire & Rescue Officer as also the District Medical Officer, for considering renewal of the licence. The contention of the writ petitioner was that such No Objection Certificate from the two specified authorities is not contemplated at the time of seeking renewal of the existing licence. In support of the contention, the petitioner relied on Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades & Factories) Rules, 1996 ((sic) Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and other Services) Rules, 1996). (for short, “the Rules”). 3. As the records show, the writ petitioner is conducting the crusher unit since the year 1995 and the renewal for the D & O licence was being granted without any difficulty till 2018. They submitted the application for renewal for the year 2018-19 as per Ext.P6 on 19.03.2018 under the Rules. But, on this occasion, the Koppam Grama Panchayat Authorities insisted on the No Objection Certificates aforementioned as a precondition for considering the renewal. Thus aggrieved, the appellant filed the W.P.(C) before this Court. 4. The case of the Grama Panchayat was that when the crusher unit was initially established in the year 1995, the permission was only for machineries up to a total capacity of 65HP, whereas, currently, the installed machineries in the crusher unit are of much higher power (598HP); and therefore, there is drastic change in the nature of the industry conducted by the petitioner. For this reasons, the Panchayat Authorities insisted on the No Objection Certificates from the Fire & Rescue Department as also the medical authorities, for considering the renewal of the said licence. 5. For this reasons, the Panchayat Authorities insisted on the No Objection Certificates from the Fire & Rescue Department as also the medical authorities, for considering the renewal of the said licence. 5. The learned Judge had considered the question whether the respondents are entitled to insist on production of No Objection Certificates from the Fire Department as well as the District Medical Officer, for renewal of licence and then, went on to examine the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Public Health Act, 1955, which provides for dealing with “nuisance” and “power of local authority to abate nuisance”. Referring to these provisions, the court was of the view that it is open to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to ensure compliance with the health requirements and public safety aspect, for considering renewal of the D & O licence. The W.P.(C) was accordingly disposed of on 24.01.2019, making it clear that if and when the petitioner applies for renewal of licence for the ensuing year 2019-20 (since the operation of Ext.P9 was stayed by an interim order), the panchayat will be at liberty to insist for clearances from the Fire & Rescue Department as well as the District Medical Officer. 6. Assailing the legality of the above judgment, the learned counsel, Sri.Philip J. Vettickattu would refer to the Ext.P13 order dated 06.05.2011 of the Grama Panchayat to point out that sanction for additional machineries was granted as early as in the year 2011, without insisting on clearance from the Fire and Safety Department or the medical authorities. It is also contended by the appellant that the application for renewal of D & O licence has to be considered expeditiously as per the State policy as also the amended provisions of the Act and the Rules. The counsel accordingly submits that the judgment should be modified to the extent that the burden on seeking clearance is placed upon the panchayat authorities and shift it away from the applicant. 7. On perusal of the statutory provisions of the Act and the Rules, it is quite clear that while considering the renewal of the D & O licence, the panchayat will not insist on NOC from the Fire and Safety Department as a precondition for renewing the licence, particularly, for an industry operating since 1995. 7. On perusal of the statutory provisions of the Act and the Rules, it is quite clear that while considering the renewal of the D & O licence, the panchayat will not insist on NOC from the Fire and Safety Department as a precondition for renewing the licence, particularly, for an industry operating since 1995. However, the public safety and the nuisance aspect cannot also be overlooked considering the level of the responsibilities and obligations of the panchayat, to safeguard the interest of people and the public safety. Hence, minor modification of the judgment may be warranted. Therefore, it is directed that the panchayat authorities, while considering the renewal, may themselves call for reports from the Fire and Safety Department as also the District Medical Officer with regard to the safety concern of the crusher unit and if there is any negative input, they can seek necessary corrective measure from the appellant. Since the validity of the appellant’s current licence is up to 31.03.2019, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat would immediately seek reports from both authorities (the Fire and Safety Department as well as the Medical Officer) so that there is no delay in considering the renewal application and more particularly, there is no gap between the expiry and renewal of the licence. If the appellant unit is in possession of a valid consent from the Pollution Control Board, then, the report from the DMO will not however be warranted. In the event of any corrective steps to be addressed by the appellant, they should be put on notice before any negative decision is taken, on the renewal application. 8. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly, modifying the impugned judgment to the above extent.