JUDGMENT : NITIN JAMDAR, C.J. 1. Heard Mr.K.shaj, learned counsel for the Appellants - Panchayat and Mr.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.1 – Original Petitioner. 2. A perusal of the record proceedings would show that this is around the fourth round of litigation surrounding the permissions to be granted by the Appellant – Panchayat to the Respondent – Original Petitioner for conducting quarrying operations. In each successive round, grounds taken by the Appellant–Panchayat have either been negatived, or the matter has been remanded for reconsideration. Ultimately, the last round has resulted in Ext.P16 document, where three grounds have been taken for rejection, which reads thus: (i) Petitioner has not obtained an establishment permit under Section 233 prior to a licence under Section 232. (ii) The existence of a road which is mentioned in the asset register. (iii) Petitioner has not obtained a building permit to construct the explosive magazine. 3. Therefore, the main ground that the Appellant urges – Panchayat is the necessity for the Respondent - Original Petitioner to apply under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act) which mandates that permission of Panchayat is required for the industrial construction of any factory, workshop or workplace which proposes to employ mechanical, electrical and other types of power. According to the Respondent–Petitioner, portable drilling machines are exempted under Section 233B(d) of the Act, and since the Petitioner intends to employ only portable drilling machines, there is no need to apply for permission under Section 233 of the Act. 4. The learned Single Judge has accepted the stand of the Petitioner referring to the decision of the learned Single Judge in Ajantha v. Nagaroor Grama Panchayaat, 2018 (3) KLT 22 . The Appellant–Panchayat, on the other hand, relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Gem Granites v. Dy. Supdt. of Police, 2008 (1) KLT 937 and the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in Mathai John v. District Collector, 2015 (3) KLT 195 to contend that portable drilling machines are not part of the exemption and are covered under Section 233 of the Act. Therefore, the controversy is whether there is necessary to make an application when the Petitioner intends to use portable drilling machines. 5. Therefore, the controversy is whether there is necessary to make an application when the Petitioner intends to use portable drilling machines. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that even though the Petitioner contends that the portable drilling machines are all under the exempted category, to curtail further litigation, the Petitioner is not averse to making an application under Section 233 of the Act for permission. That being the position and no other impediment is shown to us as to why under Section 233 of the Act the application cannot be processed, we intend to pass orders setting up a time to schedule for filing the application and its disposal. 6. Turning to the second ground, which is the existence of a road concerned, this criterion is neither shown to be traceable to Section 233 nor to Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat and Building Rules, 2019 (the Rules), to withhold the permission itself. According to the Panchayat, the observations made in the impugned judgment that there is no such public road will affect the Panchayat and these criteria have been wrongly taken into consideration while granting environmental clearance. The Environmental Authority has observed that there does not exist a public road in Ext.P19 and has granted environmental clearance. The learned counsel for the Appellant—Panchayat—submits that this aspect has been taken up with the Authority that has granted environmental clearance. Their response was negative, and the Appellant intends to take the matter further. It is always open to the Appellant to recourse to the law as is permissible. 7. As regards the third ground, that is, the building permit for storing the explosive magazine is concerned, there is a debate before us as to whether what is on-site is a 'building' as defined under the Rules. According to the Appellant–Panchayat, it falls within the definition of 'building', while according to the Respondent-Original Petitioner, it is only storage for explosives as per the licence given by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), which permits temporary storage. If there is any violation of the Rules in respect of the construction, it is always open to the Panchayat to initiate such proceedings as may be permissible in law, and if such proceedings are so initiated, it is open to the Respondent-Original Petitioner to justify the action within the ambit of the provisions. If there is any violation of the Rules in respect of the construction, it is always open to the Panchayat to initiate such proceedings as may be permissible in law, and if such proceedings are so initiated, it is open to the Respondent-Original Petitioner to justify the action within the ambit of the provisions. These three grounds are now being addressed, and we are of the opinion that quietus needs to be put to this recurring litigation. 8. As regards the charge of mala fides levied by the Respondent-Original Petitioner that the Panchayat is acting on the behest of the next-door quarry owner, the learned counsel for the Appellant-Panchayat submits that the charge is entirely baseless and that the Panchayat is only interested in ensuring that the Respondent-Original Petitioner acts as per the provisions of law and the applications will be decided as per law. In any case, every statutory authority must act within the ambit of the powers vested in it, and while examining applications for the grant of a license, it must act within the scope of the statutory provisions that govern the exercise of such power. It is not permissible for a statutory authority to consider criteria not specified in the statute; otherwise, such an action would be outside its jurisdiction. Therefore, while processing the application, the Respondent- Panchayat, will keep this legal position in mind. As regards the existence of the road and its structure, we have already issued the above-mentioned clarification. 9. Accordingly, we permit the Petitioner to make an application under Section 233 of the Act for a licence to operate a quarry. If such an application is made within two weeks, the Panchayat will take a decision and convey the same to the Respondent-Original Petitioner within four weeks from that date. The timetable will commence from the date this judgment is uploaded. 10. With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of.