The court confirmed that local authorities must ensure compliance with safety regulations when issuing permissions for quarrying operations, and can revoke them upon public complaints about safety violations.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026)

K. NATARAJAN . J

This Writ appeal is filed by the appellants, who are respondent Nos. 5 to 10 in Writ Petition No. 21937 of 2024, challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.10.2024, by which the writ petition was allowed and Ext. P13 “stop memo” issued by respondent No. 4, Panangad Grama Panchay- ath, was quashed. The appellants also challenge the dismissal of the review petition by the same Bench in R.P. No. 119 of 2025 dated 03.03.2025.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv. N Anand, the learned counsel appearing for R1, the learned Senior Government pleader appearing for R2 and R3, Adv. Susmitha K.P, the learned counsel appearing for R4, Adv. C.P Sabari, the learned counsel appearing for R5, and Adv. T Naveen, the learned counsel appearing for R6 and R7.

3. The case of the writ petitioner before the Single Judge in the writ petition is that the petitioner has obtained permission for running the quarry as per Ext. P1 executed by the State Government. He has obtained environmental clearance granted by the District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and permission from the Geologist, consent to operate, from the Pollution Control Board, and a licence for possession of explosives from the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives. Despite having all these permissions, the Village/Panchayat also granted permission to the petitioner for running the quarry. Despite obtaining all these permissions, respondent No.3 Grama Panchayath in the W.P.(C) issued Ext.P13, a “stop memo”, to stop the quarrying operations. It was challenged by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge, after calling for objec- tions, finally disposed of the petition by allowing the petition and quashing Ext. P13 order passed by the Grama Panchayat. The learned Single Judge directed the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents and a compliance report before the Pol- lution Control Board, and the Pollution Control Board was di- rected to conduct an inspection within a week from the date of submission of the compliance report by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders, and permitted the respondent No.1/ writ petitioner to run the quarry. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents Nos.5 to 10, who were additional respondents in the petition, are said to be filed a review petition before the same Bench contending that they obtained certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. From the information so obtained, it was revealed that no ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) had been obtained from the Fire Safety Department. Therefore, they approached the learned Single Judge for review of the order, but the same came to be dismissed. Accordingly, respondent Nos.5 to 10 are before this Bench.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the order under challenge is not legal and requires interference by this Court, as the learned Single Judge did not consider the documents and the report of the Tahsildar and the Joint Committee, who visited the spot and found cracks in the buildings and houses. The safety norms were not properly followed by the quarry owner/writ petitioner. Such being the case, allowing the writ petitioner to run the quarry is not correct. However, the directions issued to the concerned authorities to re-look into the report of the Village/Panchayat in co-ordination with the Poli