JUDGMENT : The petitioner who is Managing Director of a Company engaged in the business of granite quarrying and stone crushing, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P4 and to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 application in accordance with law within a time limit that may be specified. 2. The petitioner's Company owns 7.4890 Hectares of land in Sy.No.1/1 of Alanalloor III Village in Mannarkad Taluk in Palakkad District. The petitioner applied for quarrying lease as per Ext.P1. Requisite fee was also remitted. Thereupon, the Geologist addressed Ext.P3 letter to the Wild Life Warden, Silent Valley National Park to ascertain the distance of land where quarrying is proposed from the Silent Valley National Park Buffer Zone. 3. In response to Ext.P3, the Wildlife Warden sent Ext.P4 letter to the Geologist stating that the land is 650 meters away from the Buffer Zone. The Wildlife Warden further stated that the area has substantial presence of wild life and Landslide had occurred in the nearby area. The Wild Life Warden stated that no permission should be granted for quarrying. It is challenging Ext.P4 communication that the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that since the proposed quarrying area is very close to the Silent Velley National Park's Buffer Zone and since there is substantial presence of wild life including wild animals in the area, the stand taken by the Wildlife Warden is perfectly justified. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 6. Ext. R4(d) Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on 08.08.2019 deals with procedure for consideration of developmental projects located within 10 km of National Park/Wildlife Sanctuary for grant of Environmental Clearance under EIA Notification, 2006. The Ext.R4(d) O.M. provides that the Project Proponent shall submit the application simultaneously for grant of Terms of Reference/Environmental Clearance as well as Wildlife Clearance. It is evident from Ext.R4(d) O.M. that the requirement of Wildlife Clearance arises only at the stage of submission of application for Environmental Clearance and for grant of Terms of Reference. A perusal of Ext.R4(d) clearly indicates that the application for Wildlife Clearance need be given only along with the application for Environmental Clearance. 7. It is evident from Ext.R4(d) O.M. that the requirement of Wildlife Clearance arises only at the stage of submission of application for Environmental Clearance and for grant of Terms of Reference. A perusal of Ext.R4(d) clearly indicates that the application for Wildlife Clearance need be given only along with the application for Environmental Clearance. 7. Rule 33 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 in its sub rule (1) provides that on receipt of the application for grant or renewal of quarrying lease 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 to the precise area. Rule 33 (1) would also show that requirement of Approved Mining Plan and Environmental Clearance arises only after submission of the application for quarrying lease and a decision taken thereon. 8. The Rule 33(2) provides that on receipt of an Approved Mining Plan and Environmental Clearance for the precise area and on production of all other statutory licences/clearances/No Objection Certificate etc. from other statutory authorities concerned, the competent authority shall grant a quarrying lease within thirty days. Rule 33(2) would also indicate that such statutory licences/ clearances/No Objection Certificates from other statutory authorities are required only at a later stage. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that non-processing of Ext.P1 application for Mining Lease submitted by the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P4, is not justified. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to process Ext.P1 application in terms of Rule 33 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 without regard to the observations contained in Ext.P4. Needless to say that the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority will be at liberty to require the production of Wildlife Clearances if it is required under law.