JUDGMENT : W.P.(C) No.38826 of 2023 W.P.(C) No.38826 of 2023 is filed by an action council aggrieved by the non consideration of the complaint submitted against the issuance of Ext.P5 Environmental Clearance for the functioning of a building stone quarry owned by the 7th respondent, who was the Proprietor of Nayampadam Granites. The petitioner essentially contends that the proposed entry route does not have road access to the permitted area and that the exit road is a road going through a residential colony having a width of only 3 metres and also alleged that there were residential buildings situated on either side of the road very close to the above-mentioned exit road. 2. It is based on this complaint that Ext.P6 representation has been filed before the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), the 2nd respondent. The 7th respondent filed a counter affidavit as an answer to the above allegation made by the writ petitioner, which is as follows:- “15. Without prejudice to what is submitted above, it is submitted that, in order to avoid any possible inconvenience to the exit and entry which is permitted in the Environmental Clearance, this respondent has arranged an alternative road having width of more than 8 meters by obtaining consent from the land owners concerned. 16. True copy of the notarized joint consent dated 12/O8/2O24 issued by Sri. Sankaranarayanan, S/o Madhavan Nair, Aryachola house, Kundalassery P.O, Kundalassery Desom, Palakkad District and Sri. Achuthankutty, S/o Narayanan Nair Pattathu house, Kundalassery P.O, Kundalassery Desom, Palakkad District is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R7(a). 17. True copy of the notarized consent dated 12/08/ 2024 issued by Sri. Sethumadhavan S/o Late Kunjilakshmi Amma, Amminipookkattu, Keralassery Desom, Palakkad District is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R7(b).” 3. Though the 7th respondent denied the allegation made against him, to avoid any possible inconvenience to the exit and entry permitted in the environment clearance, the 7th respondent had arranged an alternative road having a width of more than 8 metres by obtaining consent from the land owners concerned. The above statements made in the counter affidavit are recorded. Though the 7th respondent denied the allegation made against him, to avoid any possible inconvenience to the exit and entry permitted in the environment clearance, the 7th respondent had arranged an alternative road having a width of more than 8 metres by obtaining consent from the land owners concerned. The above statements made in the counter affidavit are recorded. Since, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the same was the only reason for making the complaint, given the undertaking given by the 7th respondent in the counter affidavit filed and taking note of the fact that the 2nd respondent SEIAA had permitted the use of the road, the petitioner cannot have any further grievance in the light of the undertaking given by the 7th respondent. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.38826 of 2023 is closed, making it clear that the complaint raised by the petitioner stands redressed. Needless to say, the 2nd respondent shall not proceed with any complaint made by the petitioner in this case. W.P.(C) No.26305 of 2024 W.P.(C) No.26305 of 2024 is filed by M/s Nayampadam Granites, the Proprietor of which, was arrayed as the 7th respondent in the connected writ petition, aggrieved by Ext.P4 issued by the Panchayat dated 25.05.2024, returning the application submitted by the petitioner, seeking renewal of the D&O licence granted for quarrying operations citing the pendency of W.P.(C) No.38826 of 2023. In the absence of any orders interdicting the Panchayat from exercising its statutory functions, the Panchayat could not have stated the pendency of the writ petition as a reason for not considering the application for trade licence. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the inter party judgment in Nayampadam Granites v. Secretary, Keralassery Grama Panchayat [ 2023 (6) KLT 305 ] wherein this Court found that renewal of a licence should only be a formality and that the same is automatic unless there are exceptional circumstances requiring compliance of mandatory conditions, which can be directed to be complied with while renewing the licence. 4. In the light of Ext.P5 judgment binding on the Panchayat, fresh orders shall be passed on Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and taking note of the principles stated in Ext.P5 judgment noticed above, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 4. In the light of Ext.P5 judgment binding on the Panchayat, fresh orders shall be passed on Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and taking note of the principles stated in Ext.P5 judgment noticed above, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The impugned orders are quashed and this writ petition is allowed as above.