JUDGMENT : ANU SIVARAMAN, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders of the Geologist by which the applications submitted by the petitioners for transit permits had been recited and the petitioners were permitted to remove only a lesser quantity of earth than what was provided in the development permits. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in these writ petitions who are husband and wife intend to build three residential houses and that aggregate built up area of the three houses is much less than 20,000 square meter and for the said purpose, no environmental clearance whatever is required. It is submitted that the petitioners have obtained building permits and development permits and have made applications for transit passes on the basis of the said documents. It is submitted that the District Geologist has exceeded his jurisdiction as provided in Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules in issuing an order in the nature of the impugned order. 2. In W.P. (C) No. 17673/2021, a report of the 1st respondent has been placed on record with a memo by the learned Government Pleader. It is stated therein that Rule 14(2) is a special concession from producing Environmental Clearance and Quarrying Permit for construction of residential buildings. It is stated that in the instant case, the husband and wife have preferred applications for construction of three residential buildings in a single plot under the guise of the special concession. It is stated that for a family a single dwelling house is all that is needed and one application submitted by the wife is for the construction of two houses and there is a further application by the husband for construction of one house. It is stated that special mineral concession without Environmental Clearance cannot be invoked for the construction of more than one residential house for a family. It is submitted that total land area possessed by the wife is 36.25 Ares. But, in the development plan, the area to be developed is shown as 48.70 Ares and the area of earth cutting is shown as 5.1458 Ares. In the husband's case, it is submitted that the total area is 78.80 Ares but the development plan shows the area to be developed as 87.20 Ares and the earth cutting as 10.3096 Ares. But, in the development plan, the area to be developed is shown as 48.70 Ares and the area of earth cutting is shown as 5.1458 Ares. In the husband's case, it is submitted that the total area is 78.80 Ares but the development plan shows the area to be developed as 87.20 Ares and the earth cutting as 10.3096 Ares. It is submitted that the relevant aspects of the matter have not been properly considered by the Grama Panchayat while issuing the building permit and the development permit. 3. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. The petitioners submit that applications have been submitted for construction of residential houses in the property belonging to them and development permits have also been submitted before the 1st respondent. It is submitted that going by the provisions of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, there is no requirement for a permission for extraction of ordinary earth, if the ordinary earth is not sought to be removed from the site. It is submitted that Rule 14 stands amended and it is specified that no quarrying permit is required for extraction of ordinary earth for buildings not requiring Environmental Clearance under the Environmental Protection Act. The proviso to Rule 14(2) states that in cases where transportation of ordinary earth is required, the owner of the land shall obtain mineral transit pass for the quantity to be transported under the Rules, after making payment of royalty on an application submitted in this regard. It is stated that such application shall be accompanied by valid building permit, land development permit and possession and enjoyment certificate whatever required. The 2nd proviso specifically states that in cases where levelling of land and extraction of ordinary earth is involved building permit shall be accompanied by approved building plan obtained from the Local Self Government authorities which shall contain the area of land to be developed for the construction and the quantity of ordinary earth to be extracted for such construction. It is, therefore, perfectly clear that where the building to be constructed is residential and where it does not exceed 20,000 sqare meters in area there is no requirement for an Environmental Clearance or quarrying permit. All that is required is a building permit showing the site of the construction and the quantity of earth to be removed. 4. It is, therefore, perfectly clear that where the building to be constructed is residential and where it does not exceed 20,000 sqare meters in area there is no requirement for an Environmental Clearance or quarrying permit. All that is required is a building permit showing the site of the construction and the quantity of earth to be removed. 4. In the instant case, the petitioners have produced the building permit as well as development permit. The power of the 1st respondent is confined to the provisions of Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The 1st respondent has to act within the confines of the said Rule. If the 1st respondent has a specific case that there is anything lacking in the building permit or the development permit produced by the petitioners, the petitioners or the local authority concerned can be required to clarify the same and the application would, thereafter, have to be considered in terms of the provisos to Rule 14(2) which are applicable in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a building permit and a development permit stand produced before the Geologist. 5. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the contention raised in the impugned order that the petitioners cannot seek the concession and the exemption from production of quarrying permit where more than one residential house is constructed in the property belonging to the husband and the wife is not a contention which can legally be taken by the Geologist to reject an application for mineral transit passes. As stated earlier, the 1st respondent has to function strictly in accordance with the provisions of the 2015 Rules specifically Rule 14 thereunder. 6. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the restriction imposed by the impugned orders is not justified. The said orders are set aside. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up the application submitted by the petitioners for mineral transit passes and consider and pass orders on the same, taking note of the building permit and the development permit produced by the petitioners. The said orders are set aside. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up the application submitted by the petitioners for mineral transit passes and consider and pass orders on the same, taking note of the building permit and the development permit produced by the petitioners. If there is any deficiency or defect in the building permit and the development permit submitted, the petitioners or the local authority concerned can be properly addressed by the 1st respondent and the application shall thereafter be considered in accordance with law. Since the applications are separate and the properties are also separately owned by the husband and wife, the applications shall be considered separately. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly.