JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner complaining about the functioning of a metal crusher unit by the 2 nd respondent herein. For ease of reference, the parties are referred to with reference to W.P.(C) No.8082 of 2019. 2. The afore writ petition is filed by the deceased petitioner, who is none other than the brother of the 2 nd respondent herein. Upon the death of the petitioner, his legal heirs have been impleaded as additional petitioners 2 to 4. The petitioner contends that his deceased father was running a crusher unit on the basis of a No Objection Certificate issued to him. He states that his father died way back in 1993 and upon the death of his father, the crusher unit has devolved on the 2 nd respondent herein pursuant to the partition between the legal heirs. The petitioner states that the 2 nd respondent was, thereafter, running the unit by employing manual labour. However, he complains that from 2010 onwards, the 2 nd respondent started to employ the machinery causing alleged pollution within the locality. The petitioner, further contends that he had filed a civil suit before the Munsiff’s Court, Changanassery, and obtained Ext.P1(a) judgment and decree, as per which the 2 nd respondent herein was injuncted from running the unit without obtaining a valid licence and permit, or in violation of the Rules, or in detriment to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the Civil suit. The petitioner, thereafter, contends that the Civil court issued Ext.P1 decree on the basis of the report of the Advocate Commissioner, as per which the distance between the crusher unit and the residential house of the petitioner was around 58 meters. He, thereafter, points out that the 2 nd respondent applied to get permission for establishing a secondary machinery in the unit and on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P5, filed by the 2 nd respondent, the Panchayat was directed to consider the request for issuance of licence to the 2 nd respondent. He, thereafter, contends that though Ext.P6 was filed before the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Ext.P7 before the Panchayat, by Exts.P8 and P9, the Panchayat committee decided to grant the required licences to the petitioner. He, thereafter, contends that though Ext.P6 was filed before the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Ext.P7 before the Panchayat, by Exts.P8 and P9, the Panchayat committee decided to grant the required licences to the petitioner. It is in such circumstances, that W.P.(C) No.8082 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P8 and P9 issued by the Panchayat, as above. 3. As regards W.P.(C) No.27664 of 2021, the petitioner has challenged the Consent to Operate as well as the licence issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the Local authority, respectively. 4. I have heard Sri.P.Kuruvilla Jacob, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Sri.K.R.Sunil on behalf of the 2 nd respondent and Sri.Nandagopal S.Kurup, learned Standing Counsel for the Kangazha Grama Panchayat - respondents 4 and 5 herein. 5. The essential challenge in these writ petitions appears to be with reference to the running of a crusher unit by the 2 nd respondent herein. Sri.P.Kuruvilla Jacob, learned counsel for the petitioner would harp upon Ext.P1(a) judgment and decree of the Civil Court to contend that on the basis of the findings contained thereon, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, or for that matter, the Panchayat ought not have issued the licence/consent to operate. At the first blush, the afore contention appears to be attractive. At the same time, this Court notices that the judgment and decree of the Civil Court has to be read in its entirety. The judgment and decree at Ext.P1(a) specifically notices that the 2 nd respondent herein was injuncted from running the crusher unit without obtaining the required clearances from the authority concerned and it is with reference to that, the entitlement of the petitioner for having the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in his possession is to be considered. If any other interpretation, as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, that will lead to a situation where no industry can be started in the vicinity of the petitioner’s residential premises. 6. With the afore in mind, this Court proceeds to consider the contention raised by the petitioner herein. This Court notices that, originally, the 2 nd respondent was interdicted from running the unit. 6. With the afore in mind, this Court proceeds to consider the contention raised by the petitioner herein. This Court notices that, originally, the 2 nd respondent was interdicted from running the unit. Later, an application was filed by the 2 nd respondent seeking to vacate the interim order of stay, essentially pointing out that he has obtained the necessary clearance from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board/the local authority. Considering the afore, this Court, on 07.02.2022, has vacated the interim order, permitting the 2 nd respondent to run the unit and at the same time, permitting the petitioner herein to act on the basis of the orders of the Civil Court, which was in his favour. This Court notices that, on the basis of the afore directions, the petitioner herein had filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 in I.A.No.40 of 2020 in O.S.No.182 of 2015, before the Munsiff’s Court, Changanassery, seeking an appropriate order of stay as regards the running of the crusher unit by the 2 nd respondent herein. With respect to the afore application, the Civil Court issued Ext.R2(m) order dated 20.11.2023, taking note of the rival contentions and holding that insofar as the 2 nd respondent herein is running the unit after obtaining the required clearances as per law, there cannot be any orders of stay, issued against the running of the unit by the 2 nd respondent herein. 7. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Ext.P1, is not to be accepted, especially in the light of the subsequent development, as borne out of Ext.R2(m). 8. Sri.P.Kuruvilla Jacob, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend with reference to Exts.P8 and P9 that the petitioner was not heard before issuing Ext.P9. In this connection, I am of the opinion that the afore stand, highlighted at the time of the hearing, goes against the very pleadings in the writ petition as available in paragraph 14 of the statement of facts, wherein the petitioner admits that he was heard on 18.12.2019. True, the learned counsel for the petitioner has a contention that Ext.P9 is issued by the Council of the Panchayat, whereas the hearing was extended by the Secretary. True, the learned counsel for the petitioner has a contention that Ext.P9 is issued by the Council of the Panchayat, whereas the hearing was extended by the Secretary. In this connection, I also notice that with reference to the provisions of the Statute, it is the Council, which has to ultimately arrive at a decision as regards the issuance of the licence. The Secretary has heard the petitioner and forwarded the files for consideration by the Council. Statute only requires a hearing to be extended by the Secretary. In such circumstances, the submission made by the learned counsel, with reference to the violation of the principles of natural justice is also not to be accepted. 9. Again this Court notices that the allegation raised by the petitioner relying on Ext.P1 is with reference to the alleged pollution on account of the running of the crusher unit by the 2 nd respondent herein. In this connection, this Court further notices the submission made by Sri.T.Naveen, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, that on the basis of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the interim orders in the captioned writ petition, an inspection with respect to the running of the unit by the 2 nd respondent was carried out. He refers to the report of the Kerala State Pollution Control Boards, Kottayam, dated 13.05.2022 as also the affidavit dated 23.05.2022, filed by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board in W.A. No.546 of 2022 to submit that, on the basis of the afore, there was no pollution, whatsoever disclosed at the time of inspection. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the alleged pollution is also not to be accepted. 10. This Court also notices the submission made by Sri.Nandagopal S. Kurup, learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, with reference to Exts.R4(a), R4(b) and R4(c), as per which the petitioner herein had filed detailed objections at the time of the hearing and the afore was also taken into account while issuing the impugned proceedings by the Council at Ext.P9. 10. This Court also notices the submission made by Sri.Nandagopal S. Kurup, learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, with reference to Exts.R4(a), R4(b) and R4(c), as per which the petitioner herein had filed detailed objections at the time of the hearing and the afore was also taken into account while issuing the impugned proceedings by the Council at Ext.P9. In the light of the afore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no proper appreciation of the petitioner’s grievances while issuing Ext.P9 is also to fail. In the result, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case, as against Exts.P8 and P9 in W.P.(C) No.8082 of 2019 and the same would stand dismissed. As regards W.P.(C) No.27664 of 2021, this Court notices that the petitioner has challenged the licence/the consent issued by the Panchayat/the Kerala State Pollution Control Board respectively. This Court also notices that the validity of Ext.P10 consent was only till 24.02.2021 and Ext.P11 till 18.03.2022. This Court further notices that the afore licences have been subsequently renewed, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent herein. However, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the afore, if he has any subsisting grievances in that regard. On the face of Exts.P10 and P11, I do not find any valid reason for interfering for the reasons already recorded above. In the result, W.P.(C) No.27664 of 2021 would also stand dismissed.