ORDER : On 22nd November 2019, notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents. Accordingly, all the respondents are served. 2. Though the learned counsel appearing for the eighth respondent is not present, we find that eighth respondent will not be affected by the order which we propose to pass. 3. An application was made by the petitioner for grant of licence to run a stone crusher in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011 (for short ‘the said Act of 2011’). As could be seen from Annexure-D, a joint inspection was carried out in accordance with sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 6 of the said Act of 2011. After the joint inspection was carried out, it appears that a meeting of the Licensing Authority as defined under clause (f) read with clause (b) of the said Act of 2011 was held. In the said meeting which was held on 21st October 2017, it was resolved to reject the applications of the petitioner and others. As far as the application of the petitioner is concerned, in paragraph 87, it was observed that news channels have projected that excess stone crushing and stone quarrying activities have been permitted in Chikkaballapura Taluk which has resulted in environment pollution and contamination of surrounding water resources. It is thereafter recorded that it was decided to conduct Regional Environmental Impact Assessment through the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. It is further observed that it has been decided not to receive any new applications within Chikkaballapura Taluk till receipt of report through the Forest Department regarding destruction of forests in the surrounding area. Therefore, the Licensing Authority decided to refuse the application. 4. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that in fact in respect of the land in Survey No.495 in respect of which the petitioner made an application, declaration of safer zone was already made by a notification dated 26th July 2013, and therefore, the application made by the petitioner could not have been rejected. 5. The submission of the learned AGA is that considering reports that large scale stone quarrying and consequently stone crushing activities were permitted in Chikkaballapura Taluk, it was decided to conduct Regional Environmental Impact Assessment, and therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned action of rejection of application made by the petitioner. 6. 5. The submission of the learned AGA is that considering reports that large scale stone quarrying and consequently stone crushing activities were permitted in Chikkaballapura Taluk, it was decided to conduct Regional Environmental Impact Assessment, and therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned action of rejection of application made by the petitioner. 6. We have considered the submissions. 7. The application for licence has to be dealt in accordance with Section 4 of the said Act of 2011. Under sub-section (2) of Section 4, on receipt of the application, the Licensing Authority is required to cause a joint inspection of the location for the purposes of declaration of safer zone. After declaration of safer zone, the Licensing Authority is required to issue a certificate of consent of safer zone to the applicant. If the area in respect of which the application is made is not declared as safer zone, the application can be rejected. As provided in sub-section (3) of Section 4, if the Licensing Authority issues a certificate of consent of safer zone, the applicant is required to approach the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for obtaining consent for operation. Only if such consent is granted to the applicant, the case of the applicant for grant of licence can be considered by the Licensing Authority in accordance with Section 6-A. The conditions for declaring safer zone are laid down in Section 6. 8. We have perused Annexure-E dated 26th July 2013 which is a notification regarding declaration of safer zone. However, in the present case, the said declaration has no relevance as the application filed by the petitioner was in August 2016 and a joint inspection as required under sub-section (2) of Section 4 was carried out on 4th January 2017 for which a report was prepared on 18th February 2017 (Annexure-D). On the basis of Annexure-D, the Licensing Authority was required to consider the issue of grant of declaration of safer zone. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting dated 21st October 2017 would show that a decision was taken to conduct Regional Environmental Impact Assessment on the basis of allegation that excess stone quarrying and consequently stone crushing has been permitted in Chikkaballapura Taluk. A perusal of the minutes of the meeting dated 21st October 2017 would show that a decision was taken to conduct Regional Environmental Impact Assessment on the basis of allegation that excess stone quarrying and consequently stone crushing has been permitted in Chikkaballapura Taluk. It is only after declaration of safer zone and for grant of consent for operation that the Licensing Authority could have considered the case of the petitioner for grant of a licence under Section 4 of the said Act of 2011. At highest, the Licensing Authority could have postponed consideration of the application till report of Regional Environmental Impact Assessment was received. 9. As we are not accepting the contention of the petitioner that safer zone was declared, the Licensing Authority will have to consider the issue of declaration of safer zone on the basis of joint inspection, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-D. If a safer zone is declared, the petitioner will have to obtain consent for operation from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and only thereafter the application for licence can be considered in accordance with Section 6-A of the said Act of 2011. The Licensing Authority has committed an error by rejecting the application even before the stage of declaration of safer zone was over. 10. The Licensing Authority has committed an error by rejecting the application even before the stage of declaration of safer zone was over. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition must partly succeed and we pass the following order: (i) Annexures-F and G are hereby set aside insofar as the subject matter of the applications of the petitioner at Annexures-B and C are concerned; (ii) We direct the Licencing Authority to consider the issue of declaration of safer zone on the basis of joint inspection report at Annexure-D; (iii) An appropriate decision shall be taken by the Licensing Authority on the basis of Annexure-D as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of two months from the date on which this order is web-hosted; (iv) If the Licensing Authority decides to declare safer zone, on the petitioner producing consent for operation from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, the application for grant of licence made by the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-A of the said Act of 2011; (v) The issue as to whether the petitioner is entitled to declaration of safer zone or not is kept open to be decided by the Licensing Authority; (vi) The writ petition is disposed of on above terms.