The petitioners in both these Writ Petitions are the same. As the issue involved in both these cases is the same, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners are stated to be farmers, who are residing in the neighbourhood of the property of the 10th respondent in W.P.(C) No.32474 of 2015, and the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.22641 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘quarry operator’ for brevity). In W.P.(C) No.32474 of 2015, the petitioners seek a declaration that no quarrying operations can be carried on by the quarry operator on the land that was assigned to him in terms of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules for agricultural purposes and for a direction to the official respondents of the State to take immediate and appropriate action to stop the alleged illegal quarrying by the 10th respondent on the aforementioned land. The averments in the Writ Petition would indicate that the petitioners challenge the quarrying operations carried on by the quarry operator on various grounds namely, (1) that the land on which the quarrying operations are carried on by the quarry operator, is land that was assigned to him in terms of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules for agricultural purposes and inasmuch as the said quarry operator does not have the specific permission from the Government for carrying on the quarrying operations, the said activity in the assigned land is illegal, (2) It is stated that the quarry operator did not obtain any environmental clearance prior to commencing the quarrying operations, and therefore the operations are illegal in terms of the Environmental Protection Act and Rules. (3) It is also the case of the petitioners that, although the quarry operator had obtained a D. & O. licence from the Panchayat in question, the D. & O. licence was not preceded by the requisite permission under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act, (4) It is the case of the petitioners that the quarrying operations were carried on by the quarry operator without complying with the procedure under the Metaliferous Mines Regulation Act. W.P.(C) No.32474 of 2015 was admitted by this Court on 27.10.2015, and thereafter, by an interim order dated 08.09.2016, the undertaking of the quarry operator that he was not functioning the quarry, since he did not have any environmental clearance, was recorded and the official respondents of the State were directed to ensure that the quarry did not function without proper sanctions and environmental clearance. It would appear that, subsequent to the date of the interim order, the quarry operator did not operate the quarry, and took steps to apply for an environmental clearance. At that stage, the petitioners approached this Court through W.P.(C) No.22641 of 2017, wherein it is contended that the application submitted by the quarry operator for environmental clearance is liable to be rejected for the reason that the quarry itself is situated on land that was assigned to the quarry operator for agricultural purposes and therefore, cannot be used for quarrying purposes. A prayer is also sought for directing the authorities entrusted with the task of granting environmental clearance to consider the objections preferred by the petitioners 838 pointing out various discrepancies in the application submitted by the quarry operator, before passing final orders on the application for environmental clearance. The said writ petition was admitted on 10.07.2017 and by an interim order of the same date, further proceedings pursuant to the application submitted by the quarry operator for environmental clearance was directed to be stayed for a period of one month. The said interim order was subsequently extended until further orders by an order dated 31.08.2017. Thus, as of today, while the quarry operator has stopped the quarrying activities in the land, the processing of the application submitted by the quarry operator for environmental clear