JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The case set up in the W.P. (C) is as follows: That the petitioner and his son together has been issued with Exhibit P1 building permit. On the bona-fide belief that the petitioner requires Environmental Clearance for the removal of ordinary earth for the construction of the building for which Exhibit P1 building permit was issued, the petitioner applied for the same and obtained Exhibit P3 Environmental Clearnace. Since the validity of Exhibit P3 expired on 15.11.2019, the petitioner made an application for extension of Environmental clearance. The petitioner also submitted Exhibit P4 application before the 1st respondent for quarrying permit to excavate ordinary earth for the construction of the building under Rule 14 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. However, the 1st respondent is insisting for Environmental Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority for granting quarrying permit which is not necessary in light of decision in Sivaraman's case 2020 (1) KLT 375 . The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 4323 of 2020 before this Court for a direction to the 1st respondent to issue quarrying permit without insisting for environmental clearance. This Court by Exhibit P5 judgment dated 18.2.2020 directed the 1st respondent to consider Exhibit P4 without insisting for environmental clearance. However, the 1st respondent as per Exhibit P6 rejected the application on the ground that there are buildings and PWD Road within 50 metres of the property and hence consent of the adjacent land owners and PWD is necessary. The petitioner would contend that the insistence in the impugned Ext.P6 order issued by the 1st respondent District Geologist that the petitioner should necessarily produce consent of the neighbouring land owners, who have properties within 50 metres of the petitioner's building site is illegal and arbitrary etc. 2. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant W.P. (C) with the following prayers: “(i) Declare that the permit under Rule 14 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 for the purpose of construction of building has to be issued without insisting the conditions stipulated in Form N. (ii) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and quash Exhibit P6 by issue of a writ of certiorari, or other writ order or direction. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, order or direction compelling the 1st respondent to issue quarrying permit in pursuance of Exhibit P4 application for construction of building in connection with Exhibit P1 building permit under Rule 14 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 without insisting any conditions. (iv) Issue such other writ order or direction as may be necessary in the interest of justice.” 3. Heard Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri. P. Martin Jose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 4. In the instant case, it is common ground that the petitioner has secured Ext.P1 building permit issued by Kozhikode Municipal Corporation for constructing a commercial building having a total plinth area of 15184.3 sq. m. According to the petitioner, by way of abundant caution, he had obtained Ext.P3 environmental clearance dated 16.05.2019 issued by the Kerala State Environment Impact Assessment Authority under the provisions of the notifications issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. But due to various delays, the petitioner could not complete the construction and the validity period of Ext.P3 environment clearance has now expired on 15.11.2019 and though not necessary the petitioner has made an application for extension of environmental clearance. It is well settled now by rulings of this Court including that rendered by the Divisional Bench of this Court in District Geologist vs. Sivaraman, 2020 (1) KLT 375 (DB), where the total plinth area of building construction does not limit of 20,000 sq. m. then environmental clearance is not required. 5. It is pointed out that the for carrying out the building construction activities in pursuance to the building permit, the petitioner has to excavate the soil. Further that, Rule 14(2) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) thereof, no quarrying permit is required under those Rules for extraction of ordinary earth in connection with construction of residential buildings including flats or commercial buildings having a plinth area of 300 sq. m. if the owner of the land has obtained a prior valid permit for construction of the such building from the Local Self Government authorities concerned. It is pointed out that in the instant case, since the total plinth area of the construction exceeds the said limit of 300 sq. m. if the owner of the land has obtained a prior valid permit for construction of the such building from the Local Self Government authorities concerned. It is pointed out that in the instant case, since the total plinth area of the construction exceeds the said limit of 300 sq. m. the petitioner requires quarrying permit for undertaking the excavation of the soil for the effective carrying out of the construction activities of the building. For that purpose, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 application dated 11.12.2019 before the 1st respondent, District Geologist for grant of such consent. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 18.02.2020 rendered by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4323/2020, this Court has directed that since the total plinth area covered by Ext.P1 building permit in this case does not exceed the threshold limit of 20,000/- sq. m. the petitioner does not require the environmental clearance for carrying out the building construction activities as well as the incidental earth excavation activities. Now, this Court has also directed the 1st respondent District Geologist to consider and take decision on the issue of grant of quarrying permit to the petitioner as sought for in Ext.P4 application. Now, the 1st respondent, District Geologist has issued the impugned Ext.P6 proceedings dated 24.02.2020 directing that the petitioner should necessarily produce no objection certificate (NOC) from the PWD authorities as well as the nearby land owners, who have properties within 50 metres from the building site. 6. The petitioner would strongly urge that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there is absolutely no necessity for the petitioner to secure no objection from the PWD authorities, who is having an adjacent road near to the building site as well as from the neighbouring land owners properties within 50 metres from the building site. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that Rule 14 (1) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 stipulates that quarrying permit is required and the only exception thereto is under Rule 14(2), which even according to the petitioner does not apply. Since the petitioner requires quarrying permit, the restrictions in Rule 10(f) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules which would inter-alia stipulate that the permit holder who is intending to carry out quarrying activities shall not carry out any quarrying activity within 50 metres from any residential buildings, other public works etc. Since the petitioner requires quarrying permit, the restrictions in Rule 10(f) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules which would inter-alia stipulate that the permit holder who is intending to carry out quarrying activities shall not carry out any quarrying activity within 50 metres from any residential buildings, other public works etc. 8. In this regard, it is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that since there is an adjoining PWD road and there are other neighbouring land owners, the petitioners cannot carry on quarrying activities within 50 metres of the PWD road or the petitioners can carry out quarrying activities only if he secures no objection from the Public Works Department as well as the from nearby land owners, who have properties within 50 metres from the building site. 9. After having heard both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the abovesaid objections raised by the 1st respondent-District Geologist in the impugned Ext.P6 order are not sustainable or tenable. Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 provides as follows: “14. Quarrying Permit for ordinary earth: (1) A quarrying permit under these rules shall be obtained for extraction of ordinary earth used for filling or levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways or buildings in Form N. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), no quarrying permit is required under these rules for extraction or ordinary earth in connection with the construction of residential buildings including flats or commercial buildings having a plinth area of 300 square metres if the owner of the land obtained a prior valid permit for construction of such building from the Local Self Government authorities concerned. Provided that in cases where transportation of ordinary earth is required, the owner shall pay royalty for the quantity to be transported and shall obtain mineral transit passes under the Kerala State Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 from the competent authority: Provided further that the competent authority shall not issue mineral transit passes for removal of ordinary earth exceeding the quantity needed to be extracted, as ascertained by it through a site inspection.” 10. In the instant case, it is common ground that the plinth area of the construction covered by Ext.P1 building permit exceeds 300 metres and therefore, the petitioner has to formally secure a permission from the District Geologist concerned or the authorised Geologist concerned for conducting the quarrying activities for doing the excavation of the work in connection with the building construction, going by the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 14. Rule 14(1) would envisage that the quarrying permit under these rules have to obtain for excavation of ordinary earth used for filling and levelling purposes in construction of embankments, roads, railways or buildings shall be issued in Form-N. 11. A perusal of the format in Form-N would clearly indicate that the same has been issued under Rule 9(2) of the abovesaid rules. Rule 9 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules provides as follows: “9. Disposal of application for the grant of quarrying permit:- (1) On receipt of the application for grant of quarrying permit for undertaking quarrying operations, the competent authority shall make site inspection and take decision regarding the precise area to be granted for the said purpose and intimate the applicant to submit approved mining plan and Environmental Clearance for the precise area. Provided that, approved mining plan and environmental clearance shall not be insisted, for the issuance and renewal of permits in the case of Laterite Building Stone. (2) On receipt of an approved mining plan and Environmental Clearance for the precise area and on production of all other Statutory Licenses/Clearances/No Objection Certificate etc. from other statutory authorities concerned, the competent authority shall issue a quarrying permit to the applicant within thirty days in Form N for ordinary earth and in Form M for all other minor minerals.” 12. A reading of Rule 9(1) would make it clear that on receipt of the application for grant of quarrying permit, who undertaking quarrying operations, the competent authority shall make site inspection and take decision regarding the precise area to be granted for the said purpose and intimate the applicant to submit the approved mining plan and environment clearance for the precise area. Mining plan is dealt with in Chapter VI of the abovesaid Rules containing Rules 53(2) of 77 thereof. 13. Mining plan is dealt with in Chapter VI of the abovesaid Rules containing Rules 53(2) of 77 thereof. 13. A combined reading of the provisions contained in Chapter VI of the abovesaid rules dealing with mining plan as well as that in Rule 9(1) would make it clear like the day light that an approved mining plan is in relation to commercial quarrying of minor minerals. Therefore, in cases dealt with in Rule 14(2), what is involved is that for carrying out building construction activity, earth excavation work would also has to be done and in such cases where the total plinth area of the building to be constructed exceeds 300 sq. metres, then a formal quarrying permit is required. The very objective as well as the pith and substance of the activity involved in cases as in the instant one is the activity of building construction. For the main activity of building construction, the incidental activity of earth excavation is also required. Earth or soil is also now notified as a minor mineral. 14. Therefore, in a case where quarrying permit is required for carrying out the incidental aspect of the earth excavation work in relation to the main activity of building construction, it cannot be said or contended for a moment that the activity of quarrying involved in this case would predominantly lie in the realm of commercial mining of minor minerals as conceived in Chapter VI of the abovesaid rules, which conceives of a mining plan. Therefore, one has to give a pragmatic reading of the entire provisions of the rules. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the restrictions in Rule 10(f) that no objections will have to be necessarily obtained in a case like this from nearby land owners who have properties within 50 metres of the building site etc. cannot really be pressed into service. 15. The matter could be even examined from yet another perspective. A person who secures a building permit has to comply with the strict conditions of the building rules framed under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or the Kerala Municipality Rules, 1994. cannot really be pressed into service. 15. The matter could be even examined from yet another perspective. A person who secures a building permit has to comply with the strict conditions of the building rules framed under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 or the Kerala Municipality Rules, 1994. Such a permit holder can even get the building permit for constructing apartment flat complexes or multi-storied commercial complexes provided, the party concerned has fulfilled all the requisite prescriptions and restrictions for securing such building permit in terms of the provisions contained in the statutory building Rules. In a case, where the party gets a building permit for constructing a huge flat complex or commercial complex, necessarily earth excavation will have to be done. In those cases, even piling activity may have to be done. It can certainly be appreciated that piling activity would be having more impact than the simple activity of excavation of earth. Where once party has secured a building permit for constructing a multi-storied flat complex or commercial complex and in accordance with building rules, the permit holder is also lawfully permitted to conduct piling activities, which would be having major impact than the earth excavation work. 16. If the applicable building rules provide for express conditions to regulate such piling activity, which has to be carried out for such building construction or such rules do not have such express stipulations, but the said rules authorise the competent building permit granting authority to provide for other conditions, which are necessary and imperative in the facts of a given case, then certainly such conditions could be stipulated and could be insisted that the permit holder should strictly abide by such conditions. Once the party concerned secures such building permit in accordance with the applicable building rules, it cannot be contended for a moment that even if the permit holder complies with all the conditions applicable for the building permit, still he can conduct such piling activity only if consent from the nearby property owners within the distance limit from the building site should necessarily be obtained, etc. so long as such conditions are not prescribed either in the building rules or in the other conditions stipulated in the building permit, as authorised by the rules. so long as such conditions are not prescribed either in the building rules or in the other conditions stipulated in the building permit, as authorised by the rules. But it goes without saying that such a building permit holder is under the common law obligation to adhere to the due duty to take care to ensure that the piling activity is duly done without causing any danger to the nearby residents and neighbouring properties, etc. and if he/she breaches such duty, then certainly he/she will be liable in law. Hence if such a building permit holder, who is given building permit to construct such apartments/complex, etc. could carry out piling activity, which admittedly is having much greater impact than the mere activity of excavation of soil for the foundation work and other related works for carrying out the building construction, then it will be highly quite unrealistic and arbitrary to insist that for carrying out the incidental activity of soil excavation in relation to the main activity of building construction, the permit holders, who are otherwise required to get quarrying permit for doing such excavation work, should necessarily secure no objection from the near by landowners, who have properties within 50 meters of the building site, etc. before the District Geologist can consider the grant of quarrying permit for carrying out such incidental activity of further excavation. But still it goes without saying that such a party will be having the obligation and duty to take care to ensure that such soil excavation activity is carried out with due care and caution so that it does not cause any danger or damage to the nearby properties, etc. 17. It is also beyond any dispute that in a case like this, mining plan is also not required. Therefore, it is evidently clear that in cases like this, the activity of excavation, which is only incidental to the main activity of building construction, cannot be said to be an activity which would predominantly fall within the realm of commercial mining of minor minerals as conceived in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. 18. Therefore, it is evidently clear that in cases like this, the activity of excavation, which is only incidental to the main activity of building construction, cannot be said to be an activity which would predominantly fall within the realm of commercial mining of minor minerals as conceived in the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. 18. In short, this Court is of the considered opinion that the abovesaid restriction under Rule 10(f) cannot really be pressed into service in a case like this, where the major activity is for building construction and the incidental aspect is for excavation of work for carrying out the main activity of building construction. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the abovesaid insistence made by the 1st respondent District Geologist in the impugned Ext.P6 order that the petitioner should necessarily secure no objection both from the PWD authorities as well as from the nearby land owners who have properties within 50 metres from the building site, is illegal and unreasonable. 19. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned restrictions imposed in Ext.P6 order as issued by the 1st respondent District Geologist will stand quashed and the matter will stand remitted to the 1st respondent for consideration and decision afresh. The 1st respondent will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and will pass orders on the request of the petitioner for grant of quarrying permit for carrying out the excavation work in pursuance to Ext.P1 building permit, as sought for in Ext.P4 application, without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 20. It is also to be borne in mind that now it is well settled by way of notifications issued under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, where the total plinth area is less than the threshold limit of 20,000 sq. m. then environmental clearance is not required. In the instant case, the plinth area of construction as permitted in Ext.P1 is 15,184.3 sq. m. which is below the abovesaid threshold limit of 20,000 sq. m. In cases like this, even environment clearance is not required. 21. It is made clear that the request of the petitioner in Ext.P4 for grant of quarrying permit cannot be rejected, citing the grounds in Ext.P6, which have already been quashed. m. which is below the abovesaid threshold limit of 20,000 sq. m. In cases like this, even environment clearance is not required. 21. It is made clear that the request of the petitioner in Ext.P4 for grant of quarrying permit cannot be rejected, citing the grounds in Ext.P6, which have already been quashed. However, it is made clear that the 1st respondent-Geologist can certainly impose restrictions, if he finds it necessary, that the earth excavation work should be carried out by the petitioner in such a manner so as not to cause any danger or damage to the nearby property owners as well as to the adjoining PWD road. For that purpose, the 1st respondent-Geologist will be at liberty to insist that the earth excavation work may be supervised by a competent Engineer of the Public Works Department or the Local Self Government Department like the Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) or Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) to ensure that the excavation work is carried out by the petitioner carefully and without causing any damage or danger to the PWD road or to the nearby property owners. 22. With these observations and directions, the above W.P. (C) will stand disposed of.