JUDGMENT : T.R. RAVI, J. 1. Common questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions and hence they are heard and disposed of together. W.P. (C) No. 9764 of 2020 2. The petitioner is a quarry operator, who had been issued with an environmental clearance on 26.04.2018 followed by a quarrying permit on 06.06.2018. The environmental clearance and the quarrying permit have been produced as Exts.P1 and P2 in writ petition. Ext.P1 says that the maximum period of excavation shall not exceed 3 years and the validity of the clearance is for 3 years. Ext.P2 quarrying permit was valid till 05.06.2019. There were objections to the quarry being operated from the local residents and the petitioner had filed W.P. (C) No. 38775/2018 seeking Police protection. This Court by judgment dated 18.12.2018 directed the Police to give adequate and effective protection for pursuing the quarrying operation in so far as Exts.P1 & P2 are valid. In paragraph 6 of the judgment this Court had noticed the report of the District Collector stating that there is no chance for any land-sliding and other adverse calamities in the quarrying site. Ext.P3 is the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 38775/2018. When the quarrying permit was due to expire, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application seeking renewal. By Ext.P6 dated 24.12.2019, the Senior Geologist rejected the request. It is seen from the order that the petitioner had all the required clearances as per law. It is however stated that on inspecting the houses of persons residing down hill, it was seen that there was seepage in several places and it is felt that, if mining is permitted it can result in natural disasters like landslide. The petitioner challenged Ext.P6 order in W.P. (C) No. 141/2020. By Ext.P7 judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P6 and remitted the case back to the Senior Geologist for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner placed the judgment before the Senior Geologist along with Ext.P8 representation dated 19.02.2020. By Ext.P9 order, the request was again rejected by the Senior Geologist. It is stated in the order that after the environmental clearances was granted on 26.04.2018, in 2018 & 2019, there were landslides in Malappuram District. The petitioner placed the judgment before the Senior Geologist along with Ext.P8 representation dated 19.02.2020. By Ext.P9 order, the request was again rejected by the Senior Geologist. It is stated in the order that after the environmental clearances was granted on 26.04.2018, in 2018 & 2019, there were landslides in Malappuram District. It is further stated that on inspection of the residences in the downhill, it was noticed there was seepage behind the houses, which can be a reason for a natural disaster. It is further stated that the situation that was prevailing at the time of grant of environmental clearances and when the District Collector had filed the affidavit stating there is no likelihood of landslide, has considerably changed when the inspection was conducted on 12.12.2019. It is stated that no further site inspection is required. Ext.P9 has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner has filed I.A. No. 1/2020 producing Ext.P10 report of the District Disaster Management Authority, Malappuram on the basis of the inspection carried out on 26.08.2019. As per the report, the area where mining is sought to be done is in the moderate risk area as far as landslide is concerned. It is also stated that there had been no landslides during 2018 in this area. The authority has finally stated that the permission can be granted for mining in accordance with the mining plan. 4. The respondents 3 to 6, who were impleaded in the writ petition, have filed counter affidavits opposing the prayers made in the writ petition. W.P. (C) No. 24078 of 2020 has been filed by a resident of the area, challenging the environmental clearance and the quarrying permit that has been issued to the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 9764 of 2020 and there are consequential prayers for stopping the mining and quarrying activities. The contention is that the area where quarrying is sought be done is fragile in nature and the possibility of landslide is huge. The petitioner has also filed Exhibit P14 petition before the State Disaster Management Authority on 23.2.2021 which is stated to be pending. 5. On 1.10.2020, this Court issued an interim order in W.P. (C) No. 9764 of 2020, appointing Advocate Commissioner to inspect the area in question in the presence of the Geologist and file a report before the Court. The petitioner has also filed Exhibit P14 petition before the State Disaster Management Authority on 23.2.2021 which is stated to be pending. 5. On 1.10.2020, this Court issued an interim order in W.P. (C) No. 9764 of 2020, appointing Advocate Commissioner to inspect the area in question in the presence of the Geologist and file a report before the Court. Thereafter, on 19.11.2020, a common order was passed in the two writ petitions directing the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority who was impleaded as additional respondent, to constitute a team and inspect the site of mining covered by the mining plan and file a report before the Court as to the veracity of the submission that source of drinking water is depleted consequent upon the mining and any other related ecological and environmental impact. The above two interim orders were challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1546 and 1580 of 2020. This Court allowed the writ appeals in part, setting aside the interim order passed on 10.1.2020 to the extent it directs renewal of the permit and declined interference with the order dated 19.11.2020. 6. On the basis of the order dated 19.11.2020 referred above, the Special Committee constituted by the SEIAA has filed a report on 19.1.2021. The conclusions recorded in the report in short are that during mining, proper drainage channels could be planned to discharge water, in case of heavy rainfall to avoid water pooling in the mining pits and to reduce intensive percolation if laterite quarrying is to be continued in the area. There is a requirement of about 220 litres per family per day working out to about 6600 litres per day for the 30 families and the the present water tank provides 20000 litres/day for the use of the families. Laterite mining activity is carried out with the help of semimechanized method by using an excavator without drilling and blasting since the rock is porous, which ensures that there will be no major noise and vibrations capable of destabilizing the small sized laterite boulders on the top and the large sized boulders on the slope. Since the mining lease area is located at 126 m height and the Village is at the foot hills away from the mining area, no ground water level will be encountered as far as the ground water is concerned. Since the mining lease area is located at 126 m height and the Village is at the foot hills away from the mining area, no ground water level will be encountered as far as the ground water is concerned. Generally water environment would have adverse effects due to mine discharges and siltation due to storm water. As this is an open cast mining it will not generate any waste water as there is no mineral processing involved. Therefore, the question of disposal of water will not arise. It is further concluded that the mining activity conducted much above the groundwater level does not lead to any ground water contamination. The report however says that the mining proponent should be advised to protect the top soil dump with retaining walls/gabions lined with granite pieces and strictly follow the guidelines in the mining plan and also instructions issued by the departments (especially Mining and Geology, Groundwater Department and Pollution Control Board) concerned from time to time and that alternately, the proponent can use the top soil for filling up the mined area before proceeding to the next area. 7. It can be seen from the report of the Expert Body that mining activity can be permitted with certain guidelines which are already contained in the mining plan and as per instructions issued by the Department from time to time. The only major issue noticed is that the top soil dumped needs to be protected with retaining walls/gabions lined with granite pieces. In the light of the report, I am of the opinion that the writ petitions can be disposed of directing the Senior Geologist to consider and pass orders on the application dated 3.4.2021 which has been produced as Ext.P14 in W.P. (C) No. 9764/2020. 8. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Senior Geologist to consider and pass orders on the application dated 3.4.2021 which has been produced as Ext.P14 in W.P. (C) No. 9764/2020 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioners in both these writ petitions and respondents 3 to 6 in W.P. (C) No. 9764/2020.