JUDGMENT : W.P.(C)No.29170 of 2022 The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2 nd respondent to see that the functioning of the quarry of the 3 rd respondent is stopped forthwith. The petitioners have also sought to quash Ext.P9 to the extent it delegated the duty of maintenance of public road to the 3 rd respondent. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by the pollution and nuisance caused due to the operation of a granite quarry, near to the residential houses, agricultural land and drinking water sources and also regarding the damage to the road, by the 3 rd respondent. The grievance raised is that the local people are not in a position to live in their houses, continue agricultural operations and travel through the Panchayath road due to the functioning of the quarry run by the 3 rd respondent. Complaints were filed as evident from Ext.P1. Alleging inaction, the petitioners have approached this Court filing W.P.(C)No.24930 of 2022, which was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing the 2 nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 complaint preferred before the respondent Panchayat, in accordance with law. Pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment, Ext.P4 proceeding was issued by the 2 nd respondent in the style of submitting a report before this Court. Later by Ext.P13, the respondent Panchayat issued a stop memo regarding the functioning of the quarry run by the 3 rd respondent. In order to prove the damage caused to the house due to the functioning of the quarry run by the 3 rd respondent and the pollution caused to the drinking water resources, Ext.P5 to P8 photographs were produced by the petitioners. The further grievance raised by the petitioners is that the public road is damaged due to the running of heavy vehicles to the quarry. When the matter came up for consideration on 06.09.2022 this Court has passed an interim order staying the operation of the quarry run by the 3 rd respondent. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd respondent, wherein it is stated that this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment, directed the respondent Panchayat to consider the request made by the petitioners and without even waiting for the time limit fixed in the said judgment to expire, they have rushed to this Court raising untenable contentions. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd respondent, wherein it is stated that this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment, directed the respondent Panchayat to consider the request made by the petitioners and without even waiting for the time limit fixed in the said judgment to expire, they have rushed to this Court raising untenable contentions. It is further stated that as per Ext.R3(a) (Ext.P13 in the writ petition), a stop memo was issued by the 2 nd respondent Panchayat. As regards the damage caused to the road, the 3 rd respondent has expressed his willingness before the Panchayat to maintain the road and enquired that if the Panchayat is having any funding issue they could financially support, but the Panchayat did not take any decision and instead of maintaining the road, issued a stop memo prohibiting the 3 rd respondent from plying the vehicle through the road and thus the 3 rd respondent was constrained to approach this Court and as per Ext.R3(b) judgment the Court directed the respondent Panchayat to consider the request submitted by the 3 rd respondent on his willingness to maintain the road and pursuant to the said direction, Ext.P9 order was issued, whereby the respondent Panchayat entrusted the 3 rd respondent to maintain the road. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 essentially supporting the contentions raised by the petitioners. It is contended that the operation of the quarry is causing serious environmental issues and damage to the property of the nearby property owners and the public road is damaged and therefore, the public is finding it difficult to use the same. 5. The Pollution Control Board has filed a report dated 04.04.2023 stating that an inspection was conducted with experts from NIT K- Suratkal and in the inspection it was found that the nearest residence is about 250 metres from the blasting area. The inspection team also verified the crack developed in the nearby houses and the water tank. 5. The Pollution Control Board has filed a report dated 04.04.2023 stating that an inspection was conducted with experts from NIT K- Suratkal and in the inspection it was found that the nearest residence is about 250 metres from the blasting area. The inspection team also verified the crack developed in the nearby houses and the water tank. It is also reported that an Ambient Sound Monitoring was conducted and found that the value is 56.2 dB(A), whereas the national ambient noise quality standard is 55 dB(A) and there is a slight increase of 1.2 dB(A) and relying on the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control)Rules, 2000, especially Section 5(5), it is contended that the peripheral noise level of a privately owned system or a sound producing instrument shall not at the boundary of the private place, exceed by more than 10 dB(A) than the noise standard specified for the area in which it is used. Hence the sound level obtained during monitoring is not above the sound level standard prescribed for residential zone at day time by more than 10 dB(A) and hence it cannot be held as a violation of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. It is also stated that since the monitoring was in the peak summer season and no over flow from the quarry to nearby water sources was noticed and therefore, sampling of water overflowing to nearby water sources was not done. 6. Respondent No.7 has also filed a detailed counter affidavit supporting the case of the petitioners mainly contending that the quarry is located in 'Maniyantharam mala' which is one among the richest bio-diversity hotspots of the Western Ghats. W.P.(C)No.31320 of 2022 7. The above writ petition is filed by the 3 rd respondent in W.P. (C)No.29170 of 2022 challenging Ext.P10 stop memo(Ext.P13 in W.P.(C)No.29170 of 2022) issued by the respondent Panchayat. The petitioner would contend that he is running the quarry with all the relevant permissions/licences including Ext.P2 Quarrying Lease, Ext.P3 Environmental Clearance, Ext.P4 Integrated Consent to Operate issued by the Pollution Control Board, Ext.P5 Explosive Licence and Ext.P6 licence issued by the Industrial Single Window Clearance Board. It is contended by the petitioner that it is only due to the enmity of the 1 st respondent and a few locals that complaints are filed against the quarry run by the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that it is only due to the enmity of the 1 st respondent and a few locals that complaints are filed against the quarry run by the petitioner. It is submitted that pursuant to the judgment in W.P. (C)No.24930 of 2022, the 1 st respondent has initiated an enquiry as contemplated under Section 233A(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994(in short 'the Act, 1994') and the Secretary has forwarded letters to the concerned departments for getting their reports. The Secretary while awaiting the reports, the party respondents have approached this Court filing W.P.(C)No.29172 of 2022 alleging that the Secretary is not conducting the enquiry as directed by this Court and it is in the said circumstances that Ext.P10 stop memo has been issued by the 1 st respondent. The petitioner submits that the issuance of Ext.P10 stop memo is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Section 233(A) of the Act, 1994 and the judgment of this Court in Lizy Aby v. State of Kerala [2021(1) KLT 374] . The petitioner would submit that the statutory authorities from whom reports were called for by the 1 st respondent have submitted the reports as evident from Exts.P12 to P14. The petitioner would contend that none of the complainants are residing anywhere near the quarry and the shortest aerial distance from one of the complainants is 249 meters. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner would submit that based on the direction issued by this Court on 14.02.2023, the Department of Mining Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Karnataka at Suratkal, has conducted an inspection and submitted a report which categorically proved that the damage etc., caused to the houses was not due to the blasting operation conducted by the petitioner. 8. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 to 5 contending that the conditions of the environmental clearance have not been complied with by the petitioner and Ext.P6 licence issued by the Single Window Clearance Board is without any authority and the issuance of the same is challenged in W.P. (C)No.32702 of 2022 and the Environmental Clearance Certificate granted by the Ernakulam District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, which is an incompetent agency, cannot be relied upon. It is further contended that the road maintenance is to be done by the Panchayat itself and not by the quarry owner and the existence of the public water tank was not taken into consideration while granting permission to the petitioner. 9. The 1 st respondent Panchayat has also filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that complaints were raised by the residents of the locality regarding the damage caused to the road and the licence granted by the Single Window Clearance Board, has expired as early as on 2021 and it is further contended that the Secretary need not wait till getting reports from the experts to issue a stop memo in the nature of Ext.P10. 10. A detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 5 contending that there has been no violation of any of the conditions attached to the environmental clearance. The contention that the damage to the road is due to the plying of lorries to the quarry is denied and it is stated that the said road has not been maintained by the Panchayt for the last several years and that is the reason why the road is in dilapidated situation. The petitioner has approached the Panchayat with a request to maintain the road, but no action has been taken by the respondent Panchayat. 11. A further reply was filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent contending that on the basis of Ext.P28 - interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C)No.20725 of 2020, the Single Window Clearance Board has granted provisional licence to the petitioner, which is produced as Ext.P30. Ext.P35 report by the NIT, Suratkal has also been produced by the petitioner, a report filed by the said agency as per the direction issued by this Court on 14.02.2023. W.P.(C)No.32702 of 2022 12. The above writ petition is filed essentially challenging the decision of the Single Window Clearance Board granting licence to the 5 th respondent (petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31320 of 2022). Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board. But the appeal was not properly considered and rejected as per Ext.P9. The above writ petition is filed essentially challenging the decision of the Single Window Clearance Board granting licence to the 5 th respondent (petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31320 of 2022). Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board. But the appeal was not properly considered and rejected as per Ext.P9. The petitioner would contend that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his case and further that, the Panchayat was also not granted an opportunity for hearing. 13. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 3 rd respondent Panchayat, wherein it is contended that though the Secretary of the Panchayat attended the proceedings, the Appellate Authority was not prepared to hear the Standing Counsel. It is also stated that the licence has already expired on 07.12.2021. It is further contended that the State Single Window Authority has no power to issue Exts.P8 and P9. 14. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 5 th respondent mainly contending that the petitioner/complainants are not residing anywhere nearby the quarry and they have challenged the functioning of the quarry for extraneous consideration. It is further submitted that the 5 th respondent has obtained all the necessary licences for running the quarry and that he has submitted online application before the Ernakulam District Single Window Clearance Board, for licence on 18.02.2020. Since the Board has not taken a decision and communicated any order, either granting or rejecting the application within the stipulated period of 30 working days, the application submitted by the 5 th respondent crystallised into a deemed grant by operation of law as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act, 1999. In the said circumstances the petitioner approached this Court filing W.P. (C)No.20725 of 2020 and this Court passed Ext.R5(B) interim order directing grant of the licence provisionally, and it is based on the same that the licence has been granted and therefore, the contentions of the petitioner are without any basis and liable to be rejected. 15. The 1 st respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that this Court as per Ext.P4 - interim order in W.P.(C)No.20725 of 2020, directed the District Single Window Clearance Board, Ernakulam to issue a provisional licence to the 5 th respondent and it is on the basis of the same that the licence was granted. 15. The 1 st respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit contending that this Court as per Ext.P4 - interim order in W.P.(C)No.20725 of 2020, directed the District Single Window Clearance Board, Ernakulam to issue a provisional licence to the 5 th respondent and it is on the basis of the same that the licence was granted. Thereafter, this issue was considered by this Court and by a common judgment, permitted the petitioner to file an appeal against the grant of licence by the Single Window Clearance Board. Thereafter, a personal hearing was conducted by the 1 st respondent on 17.09.2022 through Video Conferencing and the petitioner was heard in detail. It is further contended that the averment that hearing was only a mere formality and no proper opportunity was granted to the counsel for the petitioner to submit the case is without any basis. The averment that the Standing Counsel for the Panchayat was not permitted to appear is also without any basis and the same was strongly denied by the 1 st respondent. The quarry operator had all the licences from the authorities concerned and it is on the basis of the same that Ext.P9 decision was taken in appeal. W.P.(C)No. 25327 of 2023 16. The above writ petition is filed challenging the environmental clearance, quarrying licence etc. granted to the 7 th respondent(petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31320 of 2022). 17. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 18. Though these writ petitions relate to the functioning of a quarry and the parties are same, the issues raised are not common, and therefore, these writ petitions will be considered independently. 19. Since W.P.(C)No.29170 & 31320 of 2022 relate to the stopping of the functioning of the quarry, those writ petitions can be disposed of together. 20. W.P.(C)No.29170 of 2022 is filed challenging that, though this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment directed the Secretary of the Panchayat to consider Ext.P1 representation, filed under Section 233A(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, no action was taken except issuing Ext.P4, which is a statement prepared as if it is a report to be submitted before this Court in W.P.(C)No.24930 of 2022. Essentially the grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is regarding the pollution and nuisance caused due to the operation of the granite quarry, near to the residential houses, agricultural land, drinking water sources and access to the road. . Though W.P.(C)No.29170 of 2022 was filed alleging inaction on the part of the respondent Panchayat in issuing an order invoking the power under Section 233A(3), it is seen that subsequently the Panchayat has issued Ext.P10 order, which is challenged in W.P. (C)No.31320 of 2022, whereby a stop memo was issued invoking the power under Section 233A of the Act, 1994. Ext.P10 was issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat based on a complaint preferred by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.29170 of 2022 regarding the damage caused to their houses due to the functioning of the quarry. A perusal of Ext.P10 would reveal that in the inspection conducted, it was revealed that cracks have developed in the buildings, but whether it is due to the functioning of the quarry, could not be ascertained and therefore, a report from the District Mining and Geology Department was called for. Further, to consider the complaint regarding contamination of water sources due to the waste water emanating from the quarry, though the Pollution Control Board was issued with a notice, till date no action has been taken. As regards the presence of the water tank and the damage that is caused due to the functioning of the quarry, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority was directed to submit a report, which has not been received. It is stated in Ext.P10 that though reports were directed to be obtained by the quarry owner from various departments, the same have not been produced by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31320 of 2022. Taking into consideration all these aspects, a stop memo was issued invoking the power under Section 233A(1),(2),(3) of the Act, 1994. 21. Admittedly, the quarry in question is functioning after having obtained all the necessary consent from the authorities concerned as evident from Exts.P2 to P6 produced in W.P. (C)No.31320 of 2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reports have already been submitted by the authorities concerned as evident from Exts.P12 to P14. 22. Section 233A of the Act, 1994 deals with 'abatement of nuisance caused by factory, workshop etc.', which reads as follows: “233A. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reports have already been submitted by the authorities concerned as evident from Exts.P12 to P14. 22. Section 233A of the Act, 1994 deals with 'abatement of nuisance caused by factory, workshop etc.', which reads as follows: “233A. Abatement of nuisance caused by factory, workshop etc. — (1) Where any factory, workshop, workplace or machinery causes, in the opinion of the village panchayat nuisance by reason of a particular kind of fuel being employed or by reason or the noise or vibration created, or effluent discharged or by reason of noxious odour, smoke or dust omitted, the secretary may direct the person in charge of such factory, workshop, workplace or machinery for the abatement of such nuisance within a reasonable time to be specified for that purpose. (2) The village panchayat may, if required, obtain expert opinion with regard to the determination of the nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in charge of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery concerned. (3) Where there has been wilful default in carrying out a direction given under subsection (1) or where in the existing circumstances the abatement of nuisance is found impracticable, the secretary may prohibit the working of the factory workshop, workplace or machinery till such time the person concerned takes necessary steps to the satisfaction of the secretary for the abatement of the nuisance.” Section 233A(1) mandates that where any factory, workshop, workplace or machinery causes, in the opinion of the village panchayat, nuisance by reason of a particular kind of fuel being employed or by reason or the noise or vibration created, or effluent discharged or by reason of noxious odour, smoke or dust omitted, the secretary may direct the person in charge of such factory, workshop, workplace or machinery for the abatement of such nuisance within a reasonable time to be specified for that purpose. Clause (2) of the said Section provides that the village panchayat may, if required, obtain expert opinion with regard to the determination of the nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in charge of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery concerned. Clause (2) of the said Section provides that the village panchayat may, if required, obtain expert opinion with regard to the determination of the nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in charge of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery concerned. Sub Clause (3) of Section 233A mandates that where there has been wilful default in carrying out a direction given under subsection (1) or where in the existing circumstances the abatement of nuisance is found impracticable, the Secretary may prohibit the working of the factory workshop, workplace or machinery till such time the person concerned takes necessary steps to the satisfaction of the secretary for the abatement of the nuisance. Going by Section 233A, action for prohibiting a nearby workshop, workplace or machinery can be taken by the Village Panchayat / Secretary, only if the abatement of the nuisance is found impracticable or the direction to abate nuisance issued under Section 233A(1) is not obeyed by the person concerned. A perusal of Ext.P10 would reveal that there are complaints from the neighbouring property owners regarding the functioning of the quarry and the nuisance caused. Admittedly, the quarry is functioning with all the necessary licences and consents. It is in the said circumstance that the Secretary of the Panchayat invoking the power under Section 233A(2), directed various authorities to submit expert opinion with regard to the nuisance or its abatement and reports were called for from the Geologist, Pollution Control Board and the Assistant Executive Engineer - Kerala Water Authority. Calling for the reports of the experts itself would show that the Village Panchayat is unable to determine the nuisance or its abatement. The Village Panchayat has not issued any direction to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31320 of 2022 to abate the nuisance, if any, within a time limit fixed, but chose to call for report from the experts in this regard. The Secretary could prohibit the functioning of the quarry only if the quarry owner defaults in complying with any of the directions issued by the Secretary of the Village Panchayat or the abatement of the nuisance, if any, is found impracticable. The Secretary of the Panchayat has not issued any direction as contemplated under Section 233A(1) to the quarry owner nor any expert opinion has been obtained by the respondent Panchayat. The Secretary of the Panchayat has not issued any direction as contemplated under Section 233A(1) to the quarry owner nor any expert opinion has been obtained by the respondent Panchayat. It is only for the reason that the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.31320 of 2022 has not obtained necessary reports from the experts concerned, the stop memo has been issued. 23. The petitioner relying on the judgment in Lizy Aby 's case cited (Supra) would contend that the court has elaborately considered the situations under which the Secretary of a Grama Panchayat could prohibit an activity undertaken by a person in a factory, workshop or workplace. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment reads as follows: “6. I shall now consider the contention of the petitioner as regards the legality of Ext.P10 stop memo. Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act reads thus: "233A. Abatement of nuisance caused by factory, workshop etc. 1. Where any factory, workshop, workplace or machinery causes, in the opinion of the Secretary nuisance by reason of a particular kind of fuel being employed or by reason or the noise or vibration created, or effluent discharged or by reason of noxious odour, smoke or dust omitted, the Secretary may direct the person in charge of such factory, workshop, workplace or machinery for the abatement of such nuisance within a reasonable time to be specified for that purpose. 2. The Secretary may obtain expert opinion from the departments concerned, with regard to the determination of the nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in charge of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery concerned and such report shall be furnished, as soon as possible, but not later than fifteen days of reporting of such nuisance. 3. 3. Where there has been wilful default in carrying out a direction given under subsection (1) or where in the existing circumstances the abatement of nuisance is found impracticable, the Secretary may prohibit the working of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery till such time the person concerned takes necessary steps to the satisfaction of the Secretary for the abatement of the nuisance." A reading of the provisions in Section 233A would indicate that an activity undertaken by a person in a factory, workshop or workplace could be prohibited by the Secretary of the Panchayat under sub-section (3) of Section 233A in two situations namely, where there has been willful default in carrying out a direction given under sub-section (1) or where in the existing circumstances, the abatement of nuisance is found impracticable. The provisions would also indicate that even under such situations, the Secretary of the Panchayat is empowered to prohibit the working of factory, workplace or workshop and machinery only till such time the person concerned takes necessary steps to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Panchayat for the abatement of the nuisance. In Ext.P10 notice, the Secretary has no case that there has been willful default in carrying out a direction given under sub-section (1) of Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act or that the abatement of nuisance is found impracticable in the existing circumstances. On the other hand, the allegation in Ext.P8 notice is only that complaints have been received to the effect that the industry of the petitioner is causing pollution. The power of the Secretary of the Panchayat under sub-section (3) of Section 233A cannot be invoked on that ground. Going by the provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 233A of the the Panchayat Raj Act, the subjective satisfaction of the Secretary of the Panchayat that the factory, workshop, work place or machinery concerned causes nuisance by reason of a particular kind of fuel being employed or by reason of the noise or vibration created or effluent discharged or by reason of noxious odour, smoke or dust omitted, is a mandatory prerequisite to exercise his power under sub-section (1) to direct the person in charge of such factory,workshop or work place or machinery to abate the nuisance. Sub-section (2) of Section 233A which enables the Secretary of the Panchayat to obtain expert opinion from the departments concerned with regard to the determination of the nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in charge of the factory, workshop, work place or machinery, for arriving at the said subjective satisfaction, reinforces the said mandatory prerequisite. In other words, without arriving at a conclusion based on materials including expert opinion obtained in terms of sub section (2) of Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj to the effect that the factory, workshop, work place or machinery concerned causes nuisance by reason of a particular kind of fuel being employed or by reason of the noise or vibration created or effluent discharged or by reason of noxious odour, smoke or dust omitted, the Secretary cannot issue a prohibitory order under sub-section (3) of Section 233A. In the case on hand, Ext.P10 stop memo does not indicate that such a conclusion was arrived at by the Secretary of the Panchayat before issuing Ext.P10 stop memo. Ext.P10 stop memo is, therefore, unsustainable in law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P10 stop memo is quashed. It is however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the Secretary of the Panchayat from invoking the power under Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act, over the industry of the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions therein.” The Court in Lizy Aby 's case cited Supra has categorically held that without arriving at a conclusion based on materials including expert opinion obtained in terms of sub section (2) of Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act to the effect that the factory, workshop, work place or machinery concerned causes nuisance by reason of a particular kind of fuel being employed or by reason of the noise or vibration created or effluent discharged or by reason of noxious odour, smoke or dust omitted, the Secretary cannot issue a prohibitory order under sub-section (3) of Section 233A. Here, Ext.P10 stop memo also does not indicate that such a conclusion was arrived at by the Secretary of the Panchayat before issuing the same. 24. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P10 stop memo issued in W.P.(C)No.31320 of 2022 and the same is accordingly set aside. Here, Ext.P10 stop memo also does not indicate that such a conclusion was arrived at by the Secretary of the Panchayat before issuing the same. 24. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P10 stop memo issued in W.P.(C)No.31320 of 2022 and the same is accordingly set aside. It is made clear that the setting aside of Ext.P10 will not stand in the way of the respondent Panchayat to take appropriate action under Section 233A(3), after obtaining necessary reports from the authorities concerned, including the Geologist, Pollution Control Board and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala Water Authority. To facilitate a decision in this matter, there will be a direction to the District Geologist, Ernakulam, Environmental Engineer – Pollution Control Board, Ernakulam and also the Assistant Executive Engineer-Kerala Water Authority, Muvattupuzha to see that the reports as sought for by the Secretary of the Panchayat is made available without any delay, at any rate, within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Based on which the Secretary shall take a decision in the matter as to whether the provisions of Section 233A(3) is to be invoked, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also. When these matter came up for consideration earlier, this Court as per order dated 14.02.2023 has called for a report from the Head of the Department of Mining and Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Karnataka at Suratkal to conduct an inspection regarding the damage caused to the residential building of the party respondents due to the blasting conducted by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31320 of 2022. Ext.P35, produced in W.P.(C)No.31320 of 2022, is the report submitted by the expert body, wherein it is stated that in the inspection conducted, no vibration is recorded in the house and water tank and the cracks seen in the houses are not due to the quarry blasting. Ext.P35 report shall also be taken into consideration by the respondent Panchayat while taking a decision as directed above. 25. In W.P.(C)No.29170 of 2022, the petitioners have sought for quashing of Ext.P9 to the extent it relegated the maintenance of the road in question to the quarry owner, who is the 3 rd respondent in that writ petition. Ext.P35 report shall also be taken into consideration by the respondent Panchayat while taking a decision as directed above. 25. In W.P.(C)No.29170 of 2022, the petitioners have sought for quashing of Ext.P9 to the extent it relegated the maintenance of the road in question to the quarry owner, who is the 3 rd respondent in that writ petition. If the petitioner has a case that the road is not wide enough to contain large vehicles carrying materials to the quarry, it is for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.29170 of 2022 to approach the District Collector concerned with an appropriate complaint in this regard, who shall take appropriate decision on the same, after hearing the petitioners and the 3 rd respondent. As regards the entrustment of the maintenance work of the road on the 3 rd respondent, there will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to see that the road in question is maintained in perfect condition, so that the vehicular traffic is possible and if the damage of the road is due to any activity on the part of the 3 rd respondent, the 1 st respondent can demand for the damages from the 3 rd respondent and necessary maintenance shall be done by the 1 st respondent in the road mentioned in Ext.P9, so that to make the same motorable. 26. W.P.(C)No.32702 of 2022 is filed challenging Exts.P9 and P10 orders and also Exts.P1 to P3. The contention of the petitioner is that Exts.P1 to P3 licences were issued by the Single Window Clearance Board, Ernakulam on the basis of Ext.P4 interim order passed by this Court. Though an appeal was preferred as directed in Ext.P5 judgment, the appeal was also not considered in a proper manner, inasmuch as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to present the case and the respondent Panchayat was also not permitted to attend the appellate proceedings. Though an appeal was preferred as directed in Ext.P5 judgment, the appeal was also not considered in a proper manner, inasmuch as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to present the case and the respondent Panchayat was also not permitted to attend the appellate proceedings. It is to be noted that the 5 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.32702 of 2022 submitted an application before the Ernakulam District Single Window Clearance Board for a licence on 18.02.2020 and as the Board did not communicate any order, either granting or rejecting the application within the stipulated time of 30 days, the application submitted by the petitioner has crystallised into a deemed grant by operation of law as contemplated under Section 10 of the Act, 1999 and claimed a deemed grant and the 5 th respondent approached this Court filing W.P.(C)No.20725 of 2020 and this Court passed Ext.R5(B) interim order directing the 1 st respondent – the District Single Window Clearance Board, Ernakulam to issue a provisional licence and it is on the basis of the same that the provisional licence was granted. As directed in Ext.P5 judgment, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the grant of licence and the contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been given sufficient opportunity to present the case and further that the Secretary of the Panchayat was not permitted to attend the hearing. 27. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent – Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board, it is contended that the licence was granted as per the direction in the interim order passed by this Court and further that in the appeal a personal hearing was conducted on 17.09.2022 through video conferencing and the petitioner was heard in detail and further that the contention that the Standing Counsel for the Panchayat was not permitted to appear and even threaten to, is not correct and that only after a detailed hearing, a decision was taken as per Ext.P9, which was communicated to the petitioner as per Ext.P8 letter. Ext.P9 order itself would reveal that in the appeal, the Board has heard the counsel for the appellant, the quarry owner and the authorities concerned in detail. Ext.P9 order itself would reveal that in the appeal, the Board has heard the counsel for the appellant, the quarry owner and the authorities concerned in detail. Taking note of the fact that all necessary clearances as per the law was obtained by the respondent, the Board upheld the decision of the District Single Window Clearance Board, Ernakulam and decided to grant licence to the quarry. 28. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and the contentions taken in the counter affidavit, I am of the view that there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.32702 of 2022 and the same is accordingly dismissed. 29. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25327 of 2023 challenges Ext.P1 environmental clearance and Ext.P5 grant of mining lease issued in favour of the 7 th respondent, by the District Geologist. Ext.P1 as well as Ext.P5 are orders against which appeal is provided as per the respective statutes. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that no interference is called for. Leaving open the right of the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings, the writ petition is disposed of. These writ petitions are disposed of as above.