JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :- “(a) Call for the records leading to the passing of Ext.P13 order and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ commanding the 3rd respondent to issue a transit pass for transportation of 611.70 M cube of ordinary earth, already removed/excavated from the petitioner's property.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has obtained a development permit as per Ext.P1 for levelling of earth for the purpose of construction of a residential building having an area of 145.92 sq.m. It is submitted that the local authority had permitted him to do cutting of 611.7 cubic metres of earth from the property. However, when he made an application for transit passes, the Geologist has issued an order stating that only 50 Metric Tonnes of earth has been removed and heaped in the petitioner's property and therefore, the transit passes can be issued only for the said quantity of earth. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the strength of Ext.P1 development permit, the petitioner would be entitled to remove the quantity of earth specified therein and that the Geologist cannot sit in appeal over the competent orders issued by the local authority. It is stated that the refusal on the part of the 3rd respondent to issue transit passes for the required quantity of earth is completely without authority. The petitioner has also approached respondents 2 and 3 with Exts.P15 and P16 representations and seeks a proper consideration thereof in accordance with the Rules. 4. The 3rd respondent Geologist has placed a report on record stating that the petitioner has already constructed one house in the same premises and that as per the development permit issued by the Panchayat, the total quantity of earth permitted to be removed was 611.70 cubic metres. It is submitted that on inspection, it was revealed that only 50 Metric Ton was removed and heaped by the petitioner and that the 3rd respondent was ready and willing to issue chalan for the said quantity. It is submitted that on inspection, it was revealed that only 50 Metric Ton was removed and heaped by the petitioner and that the 3rd respondent was ready and willing to issue chalan for the said quantity. It is further submitted that there are serious complaints from the residents of the locality against removal of earth, even though there is no restriction on the number of houses that can be permitted to be constructed after removal of earth. However, it is stated that since the petitioner is in possession of 42.36 Ares of land, it is appropriate to reassess the quantity of earth required to be removed through the LSGD engineer and to assess the quantity of earth which can be removed without harm to the local surroundings. It is submitted that since the petitioner has already constructed a house and is making the application for construction of a second one in the same plot he has vested interest to level the entire plot with building permits without procuring EC and quarrying permit. 5. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is clear that the petitioner has obtained a development permit for the construction of a second house in the same premises. Rule 14(2) of the KMMC Rules provides for exemption from obtaining quarrying permit and Environmental Clearance in respect of residential or commercial buildings having limited plinth area. In the instant case, the petitioner has made the application for construction of a residential building and Ext.P1 development permit has been issued to him. The Geologist does not even have a contention that the local authority has been duly addressed for a reconsideration of the quantity of earth required to be removed as per Ext.P1. 6. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Geologist has no appellate powers over the orders issued by the appropriate local authority which has been empowered with the consideration of applications for building permits and development permits. The impugned communication is, therefore, unsustainable in law. The same is set aside. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for transit passes strictly in accordance with the building permit and the development permit issued to the petitioner by the competent authority, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for transit passes strictly in accordance with the building permit and the development permit issued to the petitioner by the competent authority, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.