JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. The captioned appeals are filed against the common judgment dated 08.03.2019 rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) Nos. 26275, 26272 of 2015 and 25013 of 2014 respectively. Writ appeal No. 1215 of 2019 is fled by a partnership firm, which was the 7th respondent in W.P. (C) No. 25013 of 2014; whereas, the other two appeals are filed by the Managing Partner of the said partnership firm, who is the petitioner in the other two connected writ petitions. 2. By the impugned common judgment, the learned single Judge allowed W.P. (C) No. 25013 of 2014 filed by Sri. K.B. Suman and Sri. N.M. Hassan Mohammed, who are respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in W.A No. 1215 of 2015. The subject issue relates to an order of lease granted to the Managing Partner of M/s. Thomson Metals dated 04.05.2011 by the State Government, and Exhibit P2 quarrying lease registered consequent to Exhibit P1 order of grant. The said writ petitioners are the neighboring property owners of the properties against which the lease was granted. Evidently, as per Exhibit P1, lease was granted for quarrying Granite Building Stones over an area of 6.4561 Hectares of private land comprised in resurvey Nos. 208/1, 208/3, 209/1, 210/2, 210/3, 210/4, 210/5 in Block No. 18 and 58 of the Muthalamada -II Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad, for a period of 12 years from the date of execution of the quarrying lease deed under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 and as per the survey map issued by the Tahsildar, Chittur and submitted by the applicant subject to the conditions mentioned therein. It was on the basis of the said grant, Exhibit P2 lease deed was executed on 13.05.2011 by and between the Geologist, District Office of the Department of Mining and Geology, Palakkad, respondent No. 6 and the Managing Partner of M/s. Thomson Metals. 3. Apparently, as per paragraph 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 bearing No. SO 1533 dated 14.09.2006 issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, prior Environmental Clearance (EC) is required to conduct quarrying operations. 3. Apparently, as per paragraph 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 bearing No. SO 1533 dated 14.09.2006 issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, prior Environmental Clearance (EC) is required to conduct quarrying operations. It specifies that the following project activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forest for matters falling under category ‘A’ in the Schedule and at State Level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) of the issues falling under category ‘B’ in the said Schedule, before any construction work or preparation of the land by the Project Management, except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity: (i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to that notification. (ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to that notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization. (iii) Any change in product - mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range. 4. Admittedly the project of the appellants is category ‘B’ to which clearance of the State authority is required. In the Schedule prescribed as per paragraph 2, the list of projects or activities requiring prior environment clearance is specified. Serial No. 1(a) dealing with ‘mining of minerals’ which is applicable to the case on hand, and it is clear that for the extraction of natural resources exceeding 5 Hectares of mining lease area in respect of non-coal mine lease, prior environment clearance is required at the stage of renewal of mine lease, for which application shall be made upto two years prior to the date due for renewal; further a period of two years with effect from 4th April, 2011 is provided for obtaining environmental clearance for all those mine leases, which were operating as on the 4th April, 2011 which requisite valid environmental clearance and which have fallen due for removal of or after the 4th November, 2011. 5. 5. It is an admitted fact that the appellants have not secured a prior environmental clearance; however as per, Exhibit P9 order dated 03.02.2015 passed by the Director of Mining And Geology restricted the area of quarrying operation to less than 5 Hectares based on Exhibit P16 application dated 06.01.2015 submitted by the appellant. Translated version of Exhibit P9 order dated 03.02.2015 reads thus: “Proceedings of the Director, Mining and Geology Subject: Mines and Minerals-stone-quarrying lease-orders issued - reducing area from the permitted lease area given as lease to Sri. P.T. Davis, Managing Partner, Thomson Metals. Ref: (i) Order No. 58/2011-12/2870/M3/2011 dated 04-05-2011 of this office. (ii) Letter No. 58/2015 dated 31-01-2015 of Village Officer, Muthalamada. (iii) Application dated 06-01-2015 submitted by Sri. P.T. Davis, Managing Partner, Thomson Metals. (iv) Report No. DOP/92/2015/A1 dated 02-02-2015 of the District Geologist, Palakkad. No. 758/2014-15-249/M3/2015 Thiruvananthapuram, dated 03-02-2015 ORDER: Quarrying lease was issued as per reference first cited for a period of two years to Sri. P.T. Davis, Managing Partner, Thomson Metal, Kombodinjamakkal P.O. Thazhekkad in 6.456 Hectors in Re. Sy. Nos. 208/1, 208/3, 200/1, 210/2, 210/3, 210/4, 210/5 in Block Nos. 18 and 58 of Muthalamada II Village in Chittur Taluk of Palakkad District. The said lease was executed on 13-05-2011 and the period would expire on 12-05-2023. The Muthalamada Village Officer as per reference second cited had reported that 3.18 Acres (1.2874 Hectors) in Re. Sy. No. 208/1 is an excess land and the nearby 82 cents (0.3319 Hectors) is not being proposed for mining and hence as per reference third cited Sri. P.T. Davis, Managing Partner, Thomson Metals had requested to exclude 4 Acres (1.6194Hectors) from the lease area. The District Geologist, Palakkad as per reference fourth cited had forwarded the survey plan prepared by the Tahasildar. In the above circumstances the following orders are issued. An area of 3.18 Acres (1.2874) in Sy. No. 208/1 and nearby 82 cents (0.3319 Hector) is excluded from the lease issued to Sri. P.T. Davis, Managing Director, Thomson Metals, Kombodinjamakkal P.O. Thazhekkad and the quarrying operation are hereafter permitted to 4.8366 Hectors in Sy. Nos. 208/3 (0.3750), 209/2 (1.3620), 210/2 (0.5891), 210/4 (0.7830), 210/5 (0.0030), 210/3(0.1760) 208/1(1.9585) all together 4.8366 Hectors and the permission is valid upto. 12-05-2023 Sd/- D.P. Sreekumar, Director, Mining and Geology Sri. P.T. Davis, Managing Director, Thomson Metals, Kombodinjamakkal P.O. Thazhekkad P.O. Thrissur.” 6. Nos. 208/3 (0.3750), 209/2 (1.3620), 210/2 (0.5891), 210/4 (0.7830), 210/5 (0.0030), 210/3(0.1760) 208/1(1.9585) all together 4.8366 Hectors and the permission is valid upto. 12-05-2023 Sd/- D.P. Sreekumar, Director, Mining and Geology Sri. P.T. Davis, Managing Director, Thomson Metals, Kombodinjamakkal P.O. Thazhekkad P.O. Thrissur.” 6. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of Exhibit P9, W.P. (C) No. 25013 of 2014 was filed by the aggrieved neighbouring property owners namely, K.B. Suman and N.M. Hassan Mohammed, and for a further declaration that Exhibit P2 lease executed by the appellants and the Geologist without having the prior environmental clearance, as illegal and unsustainable. Learned Single allowed the said writ petition and quashed Exhibit P9 impugned order. 7. W.P. (C) No. 26275 of 2015 was filed by the Managing Partner of M/s. Thomson Metals challenging Exhibit P5 order dated 07.08.2015 issued by the Director of Mining and Geology interdicting the partnership firm from conducting any mining operations without obtaining environmental clearance, and W.P. (C) No. 26272 of 2015 is filed by the Managing Partner of the firm challenging Exhibit P3 order dated 24.08.2015 issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board directing the appellants to stop the quarrying operations in the properties in question. 8. The learned single Judge, after considering the rival submissions, has dismissed the said writ petitions, basically holding that Exhibit P9 order passed by the Geologist which is a subject matter of challenge in W.P. (C) No. 25013 of 2014 filed by Sri. K.B. Suman and another, is on account of the incorrect reports of various statutory authorities and due to the callous attitude of the respective officers. 9. That apart, it is found that when the appellants were issued with Exhibit P1 order of grant, the respondents ought to have insisted all the requirements provided in the notification specified above, and also that the appellants did never operate the quarry in accordance with the provisions contained in the Notification, 2006; the project proponent cannot be said to be the one who was lawfully conducting the quarry as on the date of the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2012) 4 SCC 629 and therefore, the project proponent will not be eligible for any exemption from environmental clearance under Exhibit P1 order of grant dated 04.05.2011 issued by the Director of Mining and Geology. Being aggrieved, challenging the common judgment passed by the learned single Judge, appeals are preferred. 10. The facts and documents as contained in W.A. No. 1215 of 2019, arising from W.P. (C) No. 25013 of 2014 filed by Sri. K.B. Suman and another would be referred to dispose of the appeals. In our considered opinion, since the issue revolves around certain documents produced by the writ petitioners, by making appropriate reference to the same, a conclusion can be arrived at as to the fate of the appeals. 11. We have heard, learned Senior Counsel Sri. M. Ramesh Chander for the appellants assisted by Advocate Binoy Vasudevan, learned Special Government Pleader Sri. M.H. Hanil Kumar for the State and its officials, Advocate Sri. V. Harish for the writ petitioners, Sri. T. Naveen for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Sri. S. Manu, Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) and perused the pleadings and material on record. 12. As we have pointed out above, as per Exhibit P1 order of grant dated 04.05.2011, the area of lease is 6.4561 Hectares, including the property situated in survey No. 208/1 of Muthalamada-II Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District, a private property belonging to the appellants, and therefore, there can be no dispute that when the area of a lease is exceeding 5 Hectares, in terms of the Notification bearing No. SO 1533 dated 14.09.2006, prior environmental clearance is required, since the lease granted and the lease deed executed consequently are after the issuance of the said Notification. 13. Anyhow, the appellant Managing Partner has submitted Exhibit P16 request dated 06.01.2015 before the Geologist stating that, recently the Village authorities pointed out that 3.18 acres of land in R.S. No. 208/1 is Government poramboke and therefore, quarrying is not possible in the said land. However it is specified in the said application that the project proponent has serious dispute regarding the view taken by the Village Authorities as he has got pattayam in respect of the entire land. But, at the same time, it is stated that it is advisable that 3.18 acres and the surrounding 82 cents are excluded from the quarrying lease and the order of grant dated 04.05.2011 issued by the State Government. But, at the same time, it is stated that it is advisable that 3.18 acres and the surrounding 82 cents are excluded from the quarrying lease and the order of grant dated 04.05.2011 issued by the State Government. Accordingly, it was requested that the 4 acres above of the land situated in RS No. 208/1 may be excluded from the purview of the order of grant dated 04.05.2011, and necessary correction orders may be issued. 14. Apparently, on the basis of the said request, the Geologist, as per letter dated 30.01.2015, directed the Village Officer to forward a report in respect of the area of land sought to be excluded as per the request of the appellants. The Village Officer, pursuant to the said direction, as per Exhibit P18 letter dated 31.01.2015 addressed the Geologist, Palakkad, conveying that the property having an extent of 1.2874 Hectors located in Block No. 18 in Re-survey No. 208/1 of Muthalamada-II Village is owned by the Managing Partner of M/s. Thomson Metals and is included in the quarrying lease. However, it is further stated that “it is doubted as to whether the said property is included in excess land.” Accordingly, it is stated that the letter had been issued to the Additional Tahsildar, Chittur in order to verify the veracity of the same. Anyhow, it is specified in the said letter that, in the above circumstances, possession certificate will not be issued and land tax will not be accepted with respect to the said property. 15. Consequent to the reply of the Village Officer, the Geologist addressed Exhibit P19 communication dated 02.02.2015 to the Director of Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram, which reads thus: No. DOP/92/2015/A1 District Office, Mining and Geology Department, Town Bus Stand Complex, Palakkad-14 Ph: 0491-2527196 Email: eo.pal.dmg@kerala.gov.in Dated 02-02-2015 From Geologist, Palakkad. To Director of Mining and Geology, Thiruvananthapuram Sir, Sub: Mines and Minerals-stone-quarrying lease application submitted by Sri. P.T. Davis, Managing Partner, Thomson Metals, Thrissur for reducing the lease area - reg. Ref: (i) Letter No. 249/M.3/2015 dated 13-01-2015 of the Director Mining and Geology. (ii) Letter No. 58/2011-2012/2870/M.3/2011 dated 04-05-2011 of the Director of Mining and Geology. ................ Kind attention is invited to the above subject matter. Sri. P.T. Davis, Managing Partner, M/s Thomson Metals, Thrissur had submitted a request to reduce the lease area by 3.18 Acres in Re. Sy. Ref: (i) Letter No. 249/M.3/2015 dated 13-01-2015 of the Director Mining and Geology. (ii) Letter No. 58/2011-2012/2870/M.3/2011 dated 04-05-2011 of the Director of Mining and Geology. ................ Kind attention is invited to the above subject matter. Sri. P.T. Davis, Managing Partner, M/s Thomson Metals, Thrissur had submitted a request to reduce the lease area by 3.18 Acres in Re. Sy. No. 208/1 and to exclude the adjacent 82 cents which is part of the quarrying lease executed in respect of 6.4561 Hectors in Re. Sy. Nos. 208/1, 208/3, 209/1, 210/2, 210/3, 210/4, 210/5 in Block No. 58 and 18 of Muthalamada II Village in Palakkad District. On the said application a report was sought for. Consequently in the presence of the village officer, Muthalamada II village the site was examined. Since a doubt was expressed as to whether the said 3.18 Acres included in Re. Sy. No. 208/1 is a government puramboku, the village officer had informed that basic tax is not being collected. This fact was intimated to this office vide Letter No. 58/2015 dated 31-01-2015. On examination it is found by this office that the excluded land as marked in the survey map prepared by the Tahasildar, Chittur had been separated by a fence and the property having an extent of 3.18 Acres situated in Re. Sy. No. 208/1 is also separated by a fence. This fact came on an inspection conducted in the presence of the village officer on 29-01-2015. The application submitted by Sri. P.T. Davis and the survey map prepared by Tahsaildar Chittur dated 18-01-2015 and the declaration bearing No. 93/15 dated 31-01-2015 given by the Village Officer, Muthalamada II village and letter No. 58/2015 dated 31-01-2015 are forwarded herewith for appropriate further action. Yours faithfully, Geologist 02-02-2015.” 16. It was on the basis of the said letter that the impugned Exhibit P9 order dated 03.02.2015 was issued by the Director of Mining and Geology, which is extracted earlier. The reference contained in Exhibit P9 would make it clear that it was on the basis of the letter of the Village Officer, Muthalamada dated 03.01.2015 and the letter dated 02.02.2015 of the District Geologist, Palakkad that Exhibit P16 application submitted by the project proponent dated 06.01.2015 was considered. Anyhow, neither the order granting lease nor the lease deed executed, was altered by the statutory authority, in terms of the order impugned. 17. Anyhow, neither the order granting lease nor the lease deed executed, was altered by the statutory authority, in terms of the order impugned. 17. The contention advanced by the project proponent is that the requirement of environmental clearance is not dependent on the actual extent of lease area, but the area mentioned in the impugned order set apart for quarrying. Therefore, there was no attempt on the part of the appellants to circumvent the judgment in Deepak Kumar (supra) rendered by the Apex Court, which was after the grant of lease in favour of the appellants. 18. Apparently, as per the directions contained in the order dated 11.12.2015 in W.P. (C) No. 25013 of 2014, the District Collector has addressed the Advocate General, Ernakulam, as per letter dated 23.12.2015 produced along with a memo dated 05.01.2016 in the said writ petition, which shows that the issue with respect to the area sought to be excluded by the project proponent was verified through the Additional Tahsildar, Chittur and it is ascertained that out of 3.5780 Hectares of landed property situated in re-survey No. 208/1, Block No. 18 of Muthalamada-II Village, an extent of 1.2874 Hectares are part of the excess land and reserved for public purpose and the remaining area of 2.2906 Hectares is in the ownership and possession of the Managing Partner of the firm. 19. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to the affidavit dated 25.01.2016 filed by the Additional Tahsildar in the said writ petition, wherein it is deposed that an extent of 37.02 Acres of land was taken possession of by the Government from one E.V. Narayanan as per the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur in C.C. No. 583/73 and out of the land so taken possession of, an extent of 5 Acres from the old survey No. 435Q/1 was kept aside on a finding that it was un-assignable and the land was reserved for Government purposes. However, when the resurvey was done, the fact was not noted in the survey records as it was Government land. It is also pointed out in the affidavit that, when the legal heir of Sri. However, when the resurvey was done, the fact was not noted in the survey records as it was Government land. It is also pointed out in the affidavit that, when the legal heir of Sri. E. V. Narayanan applied for mutation in respect of a land in re-survey No. 202, it was noticed by the then Village Officer that 5 acres of Government land reserved for public purposes, is not recorded in the land records. It is further stated that at the same time, it is found that there were pencil markings that, out of the land in re-survey No. 208/1, an extent of 1.2874 Hectares is part of the Government land and it was thereafter that the Village Officer conducted an enquiry in consultation with the Additional Tahsildar and the Taluk Surveyor and decided to exclude that land from the possession certificate issued in March, 2013 and from 2013-2014, tax was also not taken in respect of 1.2874 Hectares of land. Anyhow, it is stated in the said affidavit that a complete survey was not conducted then and no steps were taken to correct the BTR and other records and it seems the Additional Tahsildar was told that the said land of 1.2874 Hectares was not allowed to be used for quarrying and it was necessitated that the area should be avoided from the lease granted. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, in fact, some of the properties included in Exhibit P1 order of grant and Exhibit P2 lease deed are Government lands vested with the Government as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and therefore, Exhibit P9 order passed by the Director of Mining and Geology reducing the said extent of land from the total extent of land is in accordance with law. 20. Therefore it is predominantly submitted that in various interim orders passed by the learned single Judge during the pendency of the writ petitions, no corruption or other legal infirmities with respect to Exhibit P9 order passed by the Director of Mining and Geology were pointed out, and after that there were no materials before the learned single Judge when the final judgment was rendered to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned Judge in the interim orders. 21. On the other hand, the learned counsel appeared for the writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 21. On the other hand, the learned counsel appeared for the writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in W.A. No. 1215 of 2019, has invited our attention to Exhibit P13 information granted by the State Information Officer, Muthalamada Panchayat, from where it is clear that the revenue tax was imposed for an extent of 3.5780 Hectares of property situated in re-survey No. 208/1 in Block No. 18 of Muthalamada-II Village. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that the above said aspect, when correlated with Exhibit P16 application submitted by the Managing Partner of the project proponent, it is clear that the Managing Partner had clear possession and title of the entire extent of the property, and therefore, the orders passed by the Director of Mining and Geology based on the opinion expressed by the Village Officer as to the nature of the property vested with the Government under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the consequential communication of the Geologist, cannot be sustained under law. 22. Further, the learned counsel has invited our attention to Exhibit P23 Certificate Verification Report/Possession and Nonattachment Certificate issued to the Managing Partner of the Project proponent, which would show that in re-survey No. 208/1 of Block No. 18, an extent of 2.528 Hectares of land is a dry land in the possession of the Managing Partner of the Project proponent. Learned counsel has further invited our attention to Exhibit P38 proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur dated 22.03.1976 regarding the land held by Sri. E.V. Narayanan and specifically to part B attached to the said order detailing the lands which are exempted under Sections 81(1) and (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to show that the property situated in original survey No. 435 Q/1 is an extent of 2.60 Acres of water body and thodu. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the learned counsel is that the case projected by the project proponent that the area said to be relinquished is the property of the Government vested as per the order of the Taluk Land Board, cannot be sustained under law. 23. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the learned counsel is that the case projected by the project proponent that the area said to be relinquished is the property of the Government vested as per the order of the Taluk Land Board, cannot be sustained under law. 23. That apart, the learned counsel has also invited our attention to Exhibit P43 communication of Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad addressed to the Deputy Police Superintendent, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, Palakkad, wherein the report of the Village Officer is extracted, from where it is also clear that from 2013 onwards alone, tax is being accepted in respect of re-Survey No. 208/1 of Block No. 18 of Muthalamada Village reducing an extent of 1.2874 Hectares of land. Anyhow, on the basis of the documents referred to therein by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the following report is given to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau: (1) It is found that possession certificate given in Re. Sy. No. 208/1 reducing 3.18Acres of B rock unassignable rock apprehending that it is an excess land is erroneous as the said property is situated in Re. Sy. No. 198. Hence a new possession certificate had to be issued adding the 3.18 Acres of excess land as well which is to be included in Re. Sy. No. 208. Thomson Metals had to prefer an application for quarrying lease adding the said land as well. (2) A clarification had to be sought for from the Geologist as to how he has reduced 82 cents of property on the ground that the quarry owner is not proposing to conduct mining. (3) No opinion is expressed since the quarry owner had raised allegations of corruption, but could not prove the same with sufficient materials. (4) All certificates in Taluk Office and Village Office corresponding to the same has to be cancelled, reviewed and a new certificate be issued. (5) It is convinced on the basis of the available materials that there was failure on the part of all officers with respect to the grant of quarrying lease. There was lapse on the part of the village officer who had expressed doubt by issuing possession certificate on the premise that there was excess land. When a further report is sought for on the basis of the available report the Additional Tahasildar, Village Officer, Surveyor and Geologist should have been more vigilant. There was lapse on the part of the village officer who had expressed doubt by issuing possession certificate on the premise that there was excess land. When a further report is sought for on the basis of the available report the Additional Tahasildar, Village Officer, Surveyor and Geologist should have been more vigilant. All these officers can be warned that such lapses should not be repeated and if found strict action will be taken. (6) It is also recommended to conduct a higher level investigation since there is allegation that fraud documents and purchase certificates had been created in the area. (7) The Tahasildar and the Geologist had to ensure that the functions of this quarry and nearby quarries are conducted legally and keeping ecological balance and quarrying permits can be issued only after ensuring the same. For further action the report along with the original complaint is submitted herewith. 24. Further, as per memo dated 31.10.2016, certain documents were produced before this Court, including the report of the District Collector, Palakkad dated 07.10.2016, apparently as per the direction issued by the learned single Judge on 11.12.2015. The report dated 07.10.2016 shows that a detailed enquiry was conducted and the site in question was inspected on 06.10.2016 by the Survey and Revenue authorities, including the Deputy Collector (LR), Deputy Tahsildar (HQ) and Village Officer, as directed by the office of the District Collector and accordingly, a report dated 07.10.2016 was submitted by the Tahsildar, Chittur. It is further reported that on verification of the reports, it is ascertained that the corresponding survey numbers in respect of old survey number, 435/Q1, which was taken possession as excess land in Muthalamada-II Village and reserved for public purpose (being rocky un-assignable) are included in Block No. 18, resurvey Nos. 198/1, 4, 5, 6, 235/3, 236/3 and 234/6. Finally, in the said report, it is stated that the report issued from the office of the District Collector dated 23.12.2015 may be treated as cancelled and corrected to the effect that a total extent of 3.5780 Hectares of landed property situated in re-survey Block No. 18 of Muthalamada- II Village is in the ownership and possession of Sri. P.T. Davis, Managing Partner of M/s. Thomson Metals and become part of the mining lease. 25. P.T. Davis, Managing Partner of M/s. Thomson Metals and become part of the mining lease. 25. Along with the said memo, a report of the Additional Tahsildar, Chittur dated 07.10.2016 is also produced, wherein the reason for the mistake crept in the earlier report is clearly specified. It is stated in the said report that the Surveyors, who had examined earlier the 5 acres of property situated in old Survey No. 435/Q1 belonging to the declarant Sri. E.V. Narayanan were excluded, and new surveyors were included. It is also reported that the property in Survey No. 435/Q1 which is a ‘B’ rock land was verified on the basis of the sketch prepared at the time of taking possession as file No. 2972/76 and at present, the said property having an extent of 5 Acres of excess land is situated in re-survey Nos. 198/1, 4, 5, 6,235/3, 236/3 and 234/6 in Block No. 18 of Muthalamada-II Village. It is also specified thereunder that no such authenticated examination had taken place in the office earlier, which led to the mistakes in the earlier reports and survey numbers. It is further reported that it had happened due to the non-uniformity in the BTR and the correlation register. 26. Anyhow, taking into account the seriousness of the matter, the learned single Judge has passed an interim order dated 05.02.2016, wherein the quarrying operations were directed to be stopped forthwith. The facts and circumstances discernible from the documents referred to above would make it clear that the reasons assigned in Exhibit P9 impugned order passed by the Director of Mining and Geology based on the then report submitted by the Village Officer and the Geologist consequent to Exhibit P16 application submitted by the Managing Partner of M/s. Thomson Metals cannot be said to be correct. In our view, the deliberation made above and the undisputed documents would make it clear that the Managing Partner, Sri. P.T. Davis, is in absolute possession of the properties included as per Exhibit P1 order of grant and Exhibit P2 registered lease deed; and therefore, the removal of the aforesaid extent of property as per the impugned Exhibit P9 order from the total extent of lease area for the purpose of quarrying can only be viewed as an attempt to get over the mandatory requirements contained under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 bearing No. SO 1533 dated 14.09.2006. 27. 27. It was taking into account the aforesaid factual circumstances, the learned single Judge has arrived at the final conclusion in the common judgment. Since the facts based on the documents produced by the parties are extensively dealt with, no further elaborate discussion on the issue is required. The documents produced by the writ petitioners discussed above would show that the Managing Partner of M/s. Thomson Metals is in possession of the entire extent of property to which the lease was granted and the lease deed was executed by the Government exceeding an extent of 5 Hectors of property, and therefore, prior environmental clearance was required in terms of the Notification, 2006. 28. Even though the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants have a case that when the learned single Judge has passed interim orders to the effect that there is no corruption or any other illegal practice employed in securing Exhibit P9 order, the learned single Judge was not right in rendering the judgment overlooking the said fact, we are of the considered opinion that the documents which were issued by the Village and Revenue authorities, and produced by the writ petitioners, reports submitted by the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Additional Tahsildar will speak in volumes that Exhibit P9 impugned order was based on the incorrect, callous and baseless appreciation of documents and the village records. The said aspect would be further exemplified by the later report of the Revenue Divisional Officer extracted above, and the later report of the District Collector discussed above. It is also clear that the excess property of the declarant Sri. E.V. Narayanan vested in the Government as per the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, is a different property included in the larger area of the erstwhile Survey No. 435/Q of the Muthalamada Village, which has no bearing to the properties covered as per Exhibit P1 order of grant and Exhibit P2 registered lease deed. 29. Above all, in the interim orders passed by the learned single Judge, it is only observed that there is no corruption etc. in giving the impugned order; however, that by itself is not a circumstance to conclude that the impugned order is not illegal, especially when the judgment is rendered taking into account the whole bundle of relevant and authoritative documents, and facts and figures provided by the top revenue authorities. in giving the impugned order; however, that by itself is not a circumstance to conclude that the impugned order is not illegal, especially when the judgment is rendered taking into account the whole bundle of relevant and authoritative documents, and facts and figures provided by the top revenue authorities. Moreover the interim orders passed would lose its relevance, when the writ petitions are finally disposed of relying upon the whole set of facts, rather than the interim orders passed based on the then available material before the court. Apex court had occasion to consider this aspect in several judgments. 30. In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 648 , it is held that the validity of an interim order passed in favour of a party stands reversed in the event of a final decision going against the party successful at the interim stage. In Prem Chandra Agarwal and Another vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and Others, (2009) 11 SCC 479 , it is held that it is a well settled principle that once a final order is passed, all the earlier interim orders merge into the final order and the interim orders cease to exist. In State of West Bengal and Others vs. Banibrata Ghosh and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 250 , the Apex Court laid down the law that interim order does not decide the fate of the parties. 31. It is also clear that even though the lease area is reduced for the purpose of quarrying in terms of Exhibit P9 impugned order, that will not, in any manner, enure to the benefit of the project proponent, because as per the schedule of Notification, 2006, it is clear that a prior environmental clearance is required in respect of a mining lease area and not an area set apart for conducting quarrying operations. 32. It is clear from Exhibit P9 impugned order that in view of the findings rendered by the Director of Mining and Geology, the area specified thereunder is excluded only from the quarrying operations. Above all, on the basis of Exhibit P9, there is no alteration of Exhibit P1 order of grant or Exhibit P2 registered lease deed. 32. It is clear from Exhibit P9 impugned order that in view of the findings rendered by the Director of Mining and Geology, the area specified thereunder is excluded only from the quarrying operations. Above all, on the basis of Exhibit P9, there is no alteration of Exhibit P1 order of grant or Exhibit P2 registered lease deed. Moreover, from Exhibit P9, it is clear that the Managing Partner of the project proponent has only stated that he is not intending to conduct quarrying operations in 82 cents of land surrounding other lease areas. Anyhow, in our considered opinion, those are all not factors to get over the mandatory requirement contained under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 in respect of securing environmental clearance, in view of the specific stipulation that in a mining lease area exceeding 5 Hectares, prior environmental clearance is required irrespective of the usage of area for conducting quarrying operations. Taking note of the above factual circumstances, we are of the undoubted opinion that the learned single Judge was right in allowing W.P. (C) No. 25013 of 2014 filed by Sri. K.B. Suman and another and interfering with Exhibit P9 impugned order. 33. Considering the facts, circumstances and the law, we are of the clear opinion that the appellants have not made out a case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities, justifying our interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge. In view of the findings rendered above, the connected appeals, which are only consequential to the findings generated above, have no legal or factual sustenance. 34. Upshot of the above discussion is that, writ appeals fail and accordingly, they are dismissed.