JUDGMENT : C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. Two petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 Letter of Intent and Ext.P4 Environmental Clearance issued to the 11 th respondent for conducting a quarry lease. The challenge is essentially premised on the existence of a water tank erected and maintained by the Kerala Water Authority, which according to the petitioners, is serving drinking water to the families in four Panchayats. 2. It was specifically pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the water tank is erected in the same rock and in the same bed, where quarrying activities are proposed to be conducted. It was also submitted that the stone, where the water tank is erected, is 800 ft high from sea level. In such circumstances, the grant of Ext.P1 Letter of Intent without adverting to the above aspects is illegal, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same is the situation with respect to Ext.P4 Environmental Clearance. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned Standing Counsel for the SIEAA; the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat; and also, the learned counsel for the 11 th respondent, who is the contesting respondent. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court notice that the right stage for consideration of petitioner's grievance is yet to arrive. Going by Rule 27 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, an application for grant of quarrying lease has to be filed before the competent authority in Form-B. Rule 27(2) speaks of the documents, which are to accompany such an application. A No Objection Certificate is contemplated in terms of Rules 27(2)(d) only in cases of revenue puramboke lands or lands owned by Local Self Government or forest lands. Rule 28 speaks about the application fee and Rule 32 speaks about the payment of royalty. Rule 33 contemplates disposal of an application for grant of quarrying lease. There, it is noteworthy that the statutory licenses to be obtained from other departments concerned, are not liable to be considered while disposing an application for a Letter of Intent. Once the application with all requisite contents and particulars as per the Rules is received, the Letter of Intent is liable to be issued after processing the application. There, it is noteworthy that the statutory licenses to be obtained from other departments concerned, are not liable to be considered while disposing an application for a Letter of Intent. Once the application with all requisite contents and particulars as per the Rules is received, the Letter of Intent is liable to be issued after processing the application. It is Rule 33(2), which speaks of the Environmental Clearance, the approved mining plan, and also, the No Objection Certificate from other statutory authorities, which is required at the next stage, where the grant of quarrying lease is contemplated. This Court, therefore, finds that it is premature for the petitioners to approach this Court seeking quashment of Ext.P1 Letter of Intent and also Ext.P4 Environmental Clearance. 5. Insofar as Ext.P4 Environmental Clearance is concerned, it is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that they have made a pre-condition, while granting Environmental Clearance, to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the Chief Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department under Section 40 (2) of the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act . It appears that the grievance of the petitioners can be alleviated, if they are afforded with an opportunity before grant of N.O.C by the department concerned. 6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the 11 th respondent that an application for N.O.C has been filed with the Kerala Water Authority, as also, with the Irrigation Department, since there exists some confusion, as to which authority is empowered to grant an N.O.C. According to the learned counsel, there is a recent Government Order, which empowers the Irrigation Department to issue N.O.C. Whatever that be, the 11 th respondent will have to obtain the N.O.C from the concerned department, as enjoined by law. The grievance can be redressed to a great extent, if the petitioners are given an opportunity of hearing before the Kerala Water Authority, as also, before the Irrigation Department, before which authorities applications have already been placed by the 11 th respondent for issuance of N.O.C. 7. There will be a direction to the respondents 7 and 8 to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and to consider their objections in the matter of grant of N.O.C for the purpose of quarrying lease. Needless to say that the issues pointed out by the petitioners will be addressed, while granting an N.O.C. 8. There will be a direction to the respondents 7 and 8 to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and to consider their objections in the matter of grant of N.O.C for the purpose of quarrying lease. Needless to say that the issues pointed out by the petitioners will be addressed, while granting an N.O.C. 8. Learned Standing Counsel for the 10 th respondent also supported the cause of the petitioner, by relegating upon the relevant rules under the Panchayat Raj Act. Learned Standing Counsel also relies upon a judgment of this Court in support of this contention. This Court is not entering into the merits of the contentions of the Panchayat, for the time being. Needless to say that the Panchayat will be at liberty to take a call in this regard in accordance with law and in tune with the binding legal provisions. 9. In case the persons, who have been impleaded as representing respondents 7 and 8, are not the competent authorities to issue N.O.C, the above direction against respondents 7 and 8 will equally operate against the said authorities, who is legally competent to issue N.O.C. Consequentially, those authorities will be duty bound as per this judgment to hear the petitioners before issuance of N.O.C to the 11 th respondent. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions.