The court emphasizes that cancellations of operational permissions require sustainable reasoning under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

1. The petitioner was granted Ext.P1, letter of intent dated 02.05.2019 to conduct quarrying operations in the property comprised in Block No.1, Re - Sy. No.171/2-2 & 171/4 of Karukutty Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District.

2. The letter of intent, Ext.P1 also states that the same is sufficient for producing before various authorities for granting their respective license / consent / clearance etc. The mining plan approved by the authorities dated 15.05.2020, is produced as Ext.P2. The petitioner had also obtained the Environmental Clearance, as per Ext.P3 dated 06.08.2023. The Explosive License dated 28.08.2023 valid up to 31.03.2024 issued by the competent authority is produced as Ext.P4. The true copy of the renewed Explosive License is produced as Ext.P5. The true copy of the Consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board dated 23.09.2023 is produced as Ext.P6.

3. On the strength of the permissions aforesaid, the petitioner filed an application under S.232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner was thereafter directed to apply under S.233 as well. The petitioner submits that though an application under S.233 was not necessary, due to the insistence on the part of the respondent, the same was also filed.

4. Permission was granted by the Panchayat Committee under S.233 of the Act, produced as Ext.P7. The order passed by the Secretary under S.232 of the Act is marked as Ext.P9. Through Ext.P10 dated 28.08.2024, the Committee had decided to re - call the permission granted under S.233 of the Act. Similarly, through Ext.Pll, the Secretary decided to re - call the permission granted under S.232 of the Act. The Writ Petition impugns Exts.P10 and P11 as without any authority.

5. The Panchayat has filed a counter, wherein it is stated that though the permission was initially granted, it was based on an affidavit filed by the petitioner, through which, he had agreed to remove the hazardous rocks within the quarry area which poses a potential risk in future.

6. It is pointed out by the Panchayat that the petitioner has not complied with the assurances given in the affidavit.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat, straight away it has to be noticed that there is no reason at all stated for cancelling the permissions granted by the Panchayat Committee under S.233 of the Act and also by the Secretary under S.232 of the Act. The petitioner has already been granted all the other permissions, which are stated above.

8. In the said circumstances, the cancellation without any sustainable reason cannot be sustained. The impugned orders are quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

9. However, the petitioner shall take such steps including getting permission to comply with the assurance given in the affidavit filed by them dated 19.06.2024. The Panchayat can also insist on a renewal of all the permissions granted to the petitioner, wherever it is required, before starting the quarrying operations.