The following are the reliefs sought for by the petitioners in the writ petition:

“a. Quash Ext.P5 by the issue of writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction; and

b. Direct the District Collector to re-consider the matter afresh and hear all the affected parties as directed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C) No.3069/2016 including the 1st petitioner by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.”

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

3. Petitioners are residents of Elavally Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioners, in the year 1968, 1st respondent obtained a licence for operating a cemetery in a property situated in Re-survey No.71/1-C of Elavally Village in Ward No.VII of Elavally Grama Panchayat, i.e., the 2nd respondent. The property in which the licence to operate the cemetery was situated at a height of more than 100 feet from the road level, as it was on the top of a small hillock. When the licence was granted, the residents of the locality including

the petitioners herein, had no objection whatsoever, as it would not have affected them in any manner. Though such a licence was issued in the year 1968, the cemetery was not established and made operational because of some disputes that existed between the devotees of the Church. Anyhow, they decided to establish and operate the cemetery based on the licence issued in the year 1968, and as part of that effort, they have removed the soil from the property reducing the height of the property to an extent of 80 feet, to make it par with the road level. On removal of the soil from the property thereby reducing the height of the property, the soil has become very loose, and if burial is conducted in that property, there will be seepage, and accordingly, contaminate the water sources which situate about 100 metres from the property.

4. So, petitioners and the residents of that area objected to the activities of the 1st respondent and have approached the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad, by filing O.S.No.2988 of 2015. Even though initially an injunction was granted, the injunction was vacated and the move to establish and operate the cemetery was started again. Thereupon, petitioners and others approached the District Collector and the District Collector has passed an order on 11.02.2016, directing the 1st respondent to approach the Panchayat and obtain a new licence, though the licence was granted in the year 1968, and since the cemetery was not made operational till 2016. The 1st respondent thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3069 of 2016, challenging the proceedings of the District Collector. The 2nd petitioner was a respondent therein. In the meanwhile, 1st respondent also filed a petition before the District Collector. This Court directed the District Collector to take a fresh decision after hearing the parties, based on which, the Additional District Magistrate conducted a hearing on 15.07.2016, wherein the 1st petitioner was given a notice and was heard. In that hearing, the Panchayat Secretary requested the District Collector to adjourn the hearing, seeking time for the Panchayat to consider the matter afresh. The 2nd petitioner also sought time to produce documents in support of his contention and requested the District Magistrate to provide another opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned.

5. Though the petitioners have approached the District Collector several times thereafter, requesting him to take appropriate action in the matter, nothing was heard from the side of the District Collector, and ultimately an order was passed on 18.11.2017, permitting the 1st respondent to operate the cemetery as permitted in Ext.P1, ignoring the contention of the petitioners that the nature and lie of the property was changed after 1968, which will cause serious prejudice to the environment and will cause health hazards to the residents of the locality. It is al