JUDGMENT : petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by illegal rejection of his application for renewal of Trade Licence for functioning Quarry and Crusher Unit, by respondents 1 and 2. 2. petitioner is owner of 6.35 Acres of land in Re-Survey No.431 of Vayakkara Village of Payyannur Taluk. petitioner’s brother is holding 9.90 Acres of land in same Survey number, which is lying contiguously. petitioner wanted to conduct a quarry in said land. Geologist approved Mining Plan as per Ext.P1. By Ext.P2, Director of Mining and Geology issued Mining Lease. period of Quarrying lease is up to 23.01.2030. Geologist has issued Movement Permit. Additional District Magistrate issued Ext.P3 Explosives Licence. District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) issued Ext.P4 Environmental Clearance (EC). Pollution Control Board (PCB) issued Ext.P5 Integrated Consent. 3. petitioner has also started a stone Crusher Unit. Geologist has granted registration to unit. PCB has granted Ext.P6 Consent to Crusher Unit. 2nd respondent-Secretary to Panchayat has granted Ext.P7 Licence to Crusher Unit. 1st respondent-Panchayat has considered application filed under Section 233 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for grant of permission to establish quarry. Panchayat decided to grant permission and Secretary issued Ext.P8 Licence dated 18.01.2019. validity of Ext.P8 should statutorily be for 5 years. But, in Ext.P8, licence period was recorded as up to 31.03.2019 only. petitioner submitted application for renewal of Ext.P8 on 26.02.2019. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 did not communicate any orders within 30 days and hence petitioner had Deemed Licence renewal. petitioner therefore applied for licence in physical form, which was not readily issued. When petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.13784/2019, respondents issued a licence dated 01.07.2019, with validity up to 31.03.2020. Before expiry of said period, on 27.02.2020, petitioner applied for renewal of licences of quarry and crusher unit. No action was taken thereon within 30 days and petitioner should be treated as having Deemed Licence. In order to obtain Movement Permit from Geology Department, petitioner applied for Licence in paper form, which was not granted. 5. petitioner hence filed W.P.(C) No.11736/2020. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court directed Secretary to take up applications submitted by petitioner and pass orders. Directions in Ext.P9 were not complied with and hence petitioner filed Contempt of Court Case No.960/2020. Thereupon, respondents filed R.P. No.482/2020. On basis of an undertaking given by respondents, Contempt of Court Case was closed and Review Petition was dismissed. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court directed Secretary to take up applications submitted by petitioner and pass orders. Directions in Ext.P9 were not complied with and hence petitioner filed Contempt of Court Case No.960/2020. Thereupon, respondents filed R.P. No.482/2020. On basis of an undertaking given by respondents, Contempt of Court Case was closed and Review Petition was dismissed. Thereafter, Ext.P12 licence dated 20.08.2020 was issued, validity of which was extended up to 31.03.2021. 6. petitioner states that 3rd respondent filed W.P.(C) No.11133/2020 challenging EC issued by DEIAA and Quarrying Lease issued by Director of Mining and Geology and also Movement Permit issued by District Geologist. This Court passed an interim order on 09.06.2020, ordering status quo. Influenced by said interim order, 2nd respondent-Secretary issued Ext.P13 Stop Memo against quarrying operations by petitioner, on 07.10.2020. petitioner submits that said Ext.P13 Stop Memo is illegal. petitioner hence filed W.P.(C) No.21536/2020. This Court stayed operation of Ext.P13 Stop Memo on 20.10.2020. W.P.(C) Nos.11133/2020 and 21536/2020 were heard together. This Court quashed Ext.P13 Stop Memo and dismissed WP(C) No.11133/2020 as per Ext.P14 common judgment. 7. petitioner thereafter made application for renewal of Ext.P12 Quarry Licence and Ext.P7 Crusher Unit licence, as per Exts.P15 and P16. 2nd respondent has not considered renewal application. petitioner therefore filed W.P.(C) No.7190/2021. On 30.03.2021, Court was informed that applications for renewal of Licences are rejected by 2nd respondent on basis of a resolution passed by 1st respondent-Panchayat. petitioner was issued with Ext.P18 letter dated 24.03.2021 communicating decision. 8. petitioner argued that Ext.P18 is per se illegal. Ext.P18 states that Panchayat Committee held on 14.01.2021 constituted a Sub Committee and on basis of report of Sub Committee, it was decided to inform various Departments which issued permits and clearances for quarry. By resolutions dated 22.02.2021 and 19.03.2021, Panchayat Committee resolved not to renew licence of quarry. petitioner was informed that renewal of licence for year 2021-'22 can be considered only on getting directions from Government and Departments concerned. 9. petitioner urged that as per Section 232 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and Rule 6 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and Other Services) Rules, 1996, 2nd respondent is licensing authority and Grama Panchayat has no jurisdiction or authority to consider application for licence or to decide not to renew licence. 2nd respondent has abdicated his powers. 10. 1st respondent-Panchayat defended writ petition. 2nd respondent has abdicated his powers. 10. 1st respondent-Panchayat defended writ petition. According to 1st respondent, functioning of Quarry was dangerous to life of nearby residents. On receiving complaints, 1st respondent decided to form a Sub-Committee to inquire into complaints. Sub-Committee found that quarrying was being done in a dangerous manner, storage of water was detected in premises and possibility of erupting water storage could not be ruled out. Sub-Committee examined damages caused to nearby houses. quarry was proximate to forest area. Transportation of granite was in contravention of terms of licence. In such circumstances, 2nd respondent-Secretary sent reports to various Departments. Grama Sabha of 11th Ward had passed a Resolution against functioning of Quarry. Therefore, Panchayat on 22.02.2021 decided against renewal of licence issued to petitioner. 11. contesting 3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit. 3rd respondent stated that project is situated in an ecologically sensitive area. petitioner obtained permits from statutory authorities furnishing incorrect information and suppressing material facts. Those were fraudulently obtained and fraud vitiates everything. Ext.P4 Environmental Clearance is not a valid document since it was obtained from District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA). National Green Tribunal has held that District Authorities are incompetent to issue certificates and certificate so issued is directly against judgment in Deepak Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others [ (2012) 4 SCC 629 ]. 12. Ext.R3(e) Field Excursion Guide for National Workshop on Land Disturbances due to Soil Piping in Western Ghats elaborately considered ecological conditions of Western Ghats. Clause 3 of Report speaks about 'Kottathalachimala' where Quarry is situated. Guide states that Cherupuzha where Kottathalachimala is situated can be considered as type area of soil piping in Kerala. It is an ecologically fragile area as per Kasturi Rangan Report. 13. 3rd respondent further alleged that due to activities of crusher units and vibration from machines used by petitioner, landsliding is a regular phenomena. materials furnished by petitioner for pre-feasibility report are incorrect. District Level Committee has not considered material factors and environmental impact. grounds urged by petitioner are without legal force and writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, contended 3rd respondent. 14. Heard learned Senior Counsel assisted by counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for 3rd respondent. 15. District Level Committee has not considered material factors and environmental impact. grounds urged by petitioner are without legal force and writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, contended 3rd respondent. 14. Heard learned Senior Counsel assisted by counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for 3rd respondent. 15. petitioner has started quarrying operations and crusher unit after obtaining EC and all other required statutory Licences, Permits and Consent, including licences from Panchayat authorities. This Court has held in judgment in Muhammed Ismail Makki and another v. State of Kerala and others [ 2019 (4) KLT 450 ] that Panchayats cannot unilaterally issue an order stopping legal activities, even when it is conceded that petitioners have all necessary licences. In this case, Panchayat has interdicted functioning of Quarry and Crusher unit, by not renewing respective licences. 16. A Full Bench of this Court has held in Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala [ 2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)] that after amendment brought about to Rule 12(3)(b) of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and Other Services) Rules, 1996, power vested on Village Panchayat to refuse permission based on opinion that establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in neighbourhood or that it is likely to cause nuisance, has been taken away by Legislature. If Panchayat feels that establishment is objectionable, Secretary shall obtain expert opinion of Departments concerned and even in such cases Panchayat shall accord permission subject to such conditions. 17. 3rd respondent put forth an argument that petitioner does not possess a licence under Section 233 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and that licences issued to petitioner are under Section 232. Section 232 provides that Village Panchayat may notify that no place in Panchayat area shall be used for any of purposes specified in Rules made in this behalf being purposes which in opinion of Government, are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property, without a licence issued by Secretary and except in accordance with conditions specified in such licence. Rule 233 provides that no person shall, without permission of Village Panchayat and except in accordance with conditions specified in such permission: (a) construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power, or electrical power; or (b) install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plan exempted by provisions of this Act or Rules made thereunder. 18. learned counsel for 3rd respondent, relying on judgment of this Court in Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat v. Johny Roy [ 2013 (3) KLT 1053 ] argued that when a composite application is submitted by a person under Sections 232 and 233, a decision to grant permission or licence under Section 233 is to be taken by Village Panchayat. 19. Both Ext.P8 Licence issued to petitioner’s quarry and Ext.P7 Licence issued to Crusher Unit refer to Section 232 as well as Section 233. There is no reason therefore to believe that petitioner does not hold Section 233 licence. argument is that Section 233 licence can be issued by Secretary only on basis of a decision of Panchayat and Panchayat has not taken any decision to permit petitioner to start a quarry. In this regard, it may be noted that a licence under Section 233 is licence to establish a Factory, Trade, Entrepreneurship, etc. or for installation of machinery and is a one time affair, as held by this Court in Soorya Retreats and Holidays India Pvt. Ltd. v. Elamadu Grama Panchayat [ 2016 (3) KLT 346 ] and renewal is to be granted under Section 232. When petitioner’s units were granted renewal of licences from time to time, it cannot be heard to contend that no Consent to Establish was granted to petitioner, under Section 233. 20. learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat contended that non-renewal of licences granted to petitioner is justifiable under Section 239 of Act, 1994. Section 239 reads as follows: “239. Power of Panchayat for carrying out their functions -(1) A Panchayat shall exercise all powers conferred on, and perform all functions entrusted to that Panchayat by or under this Act or any other law and shall also exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be conferred on or entrusted to it by Government for carrying out provisions of this Act. (2) A Panchayat shall have power to do all acts necessary for and incidental to, carrying out functions entrusted or delegated to it. (3) Without prejudice to generality of foregoing power, a village panchayat shall have power, - (a) to require by notice, owner or occupier of any land or building which is a nuisance to neighbourhood on account of - (i) its insanitary conditions; or (ii) collection of any drainage, filth or stagnant water thereon; or (iii) existence of will or noxious vegetation thereon; or (iv) presence of poisonous reptiles or other harmful animals or insect. (b) to take such action as it deems necessary to abate nuisance within a reasonable period to be specified in such notice; (c) to prohibit use of water of any stream, well, pond or any other excavation believed to be dangerous to public health; and (d) to regulate or prohibit watering of cattle or bathing or washing in any stream, well, pond or other excavation reserved for drinking water”. 21. It is true that Section 239 gives power to Panchayats to exercise all powers conferred on, and perform all . When Panchayat has issued licences to petitioner to establish quarry and crusher unit and when such licences were renewed from time to time, Panchayat cannot, solely based on public complaints, refuse to renew licences. 22. reason projected by Panchayat is adverse environmental impact and pollution. petitioner has been issued EC for conducting quarrying operations. Pollution Control Board has issued Consent to Establish. When competent statutory bodies having expertise in field of environmental protection and pollution have granted permission based on requisite studies, Panchayat authorities cannot, without any reliable materials, stop functioning of units based on public complaints alone. Panchayats also cannot take a stand that they have referred matter to authorities/Departments (who have already granted clearances to units) and till their opinion is obtained afresh, licences cannot be renewed. 23. 1st respondent has also relied on Resolution passed by a Grama Sabha of Panchayat against renewal of licences. This Court has held in judgment in Abdulla M.P. and others v. Trippangottur Grama Panchayat and others [ 2021 (4) KHC 550 ] that any decision of Grama Sabhas cannot affect powers and functions of statutory licensing authorities. Therefore, Resolution passed by a Grama Sabha by itself cannot be put forth as a reason to decline renewal of licence. 24. This Court has held in judgment in Abdulla M.P. and others v. Trippangottur Grama Panchayat and others [ 2021 (4) KHC 550 ] that any decision of Grama Sabhas cannot affect powers and functions of statutory licensing authorities. Therefore, Resolution passed by a Grama Sabha by itself cannot be put forth as a reason to decline renewal of licence. 24. learned counsel for 3rd respondent contended that ECs issued by DEIAAs are no more valid in view of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and National Green Tribunal. This Court has held in judgment in WP(C) No.1104/2021 that Environmental Clearance Certificates issued by DEIAA prior to judgment of National Green Tribunal order are valid as long as they are not subjected to successful challenge. 25. learned counsel for 3rd respondent urged that judgment in W.P.(C) No.1104/2021 requires reconsideration in view of judgment of this Court in Varghese K.T. and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2021 (4) KLT 1 ]. In said judgment, this Court, in paragraph 27 observed that leases of minor minerals, including their renewal for an area of less than 5 Hectares be granted by State/Union Territories only after getting EC. It may be noted that this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala [ 2015 (2) KLT 78 ] held that existing leases do not require an EC certificate during period of their validity. This Court has not nullified any EC certificates already issued, in said judgment in Varghese K.T. (supra). Therefore, ratio laid down by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1104/2021, need not be doubted. For reasons stated above, this Court is of considered view that Ext.P18 communication cannot be legally sustained. Ext.P18 is therefore set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take up Ext.P15 and Ext.P16 applications of petitioner and renew licences issued to Quarry and Crusher Unit notwithstanding decisions of Panchayat Committee taken on 22.02.2021 and 19.03.2021, within a period of eight weeks.