Authorities must adhere to past approvals unless legally justified otherwise.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the Managing Director of a private limited company, which intends to start a quarry for excavating granite stones. For the purpose of starting the quarry, he entered into an agreement with a person who is the owner in possession of a property having an extent of 1 Hectare 79 Square Meters comprised in Sy.No.491/1/2/4, 493/1-15-11, 487/13B, 487/1,2,3 of Pallarimangalam Village, Kothamangalam Taluk, Ernakulam District. Ext.P1 is the consent issued by the owner of the said property in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, Ext.P2 consent deed was also procured by him from the owner of the property lying adjacent to the property covered by Ext.P1, which has an extent of 2 Hectares 2 Ares and 35 Square Meters comprised in Sy.No.491/1/2/4/2, 491/1/2/4/2/2, of Pallarimangalam Village, Kothamangalam Taluk, Ernakulam District. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained permission from all the authorities concerned. Ext.P4 is the sanction obtained from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (FESO) Government of India. Ext.P5 is the consent obtained from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. Ext.P6 is the No objection Certificate under the provisions of Explosives Act, 2008. Ext.P7 is the Environment Clearance (EC) for the project issued by the competent authority. Even though the petitioner submitted an application for license as evidenced by Ext.P3, on the strength of all these documents, the same was rejected by the 1^st respondent Panchayat, despite the fact that, the 2^nd respondent pointed out that, the application submitted by the petitioner for license is supported by all the sanctions and approvals from the authorities concerned. The reason on the basis of which Ext.P8 issued was that, there are two other quarries functioning in the said locality and therefore, functioning of another quarry would cause serious difficulties to the public at large. This was communicated to the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P9. The writ petition was submitted challenging Exts.P8 and P9.

2. A counter affidavit was submitted by the respondents 1 to 3 in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, the fact that the petitioner had obtained all necessary sanctions and approvals from the authorities concerned is not disputed. However, they have reiterated the stand taken in Ext.P8.

3. I have heard Smt.M. Hemalatha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sasi M.R., learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat.

4. On going through the materials placed on record, it is seen that, the fact that the petitioner possesses all the requisite license and sanctions from all authorities concerned for starting a quarry is not disputed and on the other hand, the same is specifically admitted by the respondents. The only objection raised is that, the two other quarries are functioning in the said locality. However, as the authorities concerned, including the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, have approved the project of the petitioner, I do not find any scope in the 1^st respondent sitting in appeal over the same, for the reasons referred to in Ext.P8. The respondents could not also point out any provision that enables the 1^st respondent, Panchayat, to take a decision on the basis of the reason as mentioned in Ext.P8, when the petitioner was issued with all the licenses and approvals by the authorities concerned. In such circumstances, I do not find any justification on the part of the 1^st respondent in declining the application submitted by the petitioner for license for the reasons referred to in Ext.P8.

5. Besides, it is also a relevant aspect to notice that, as far as a licens