The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1996 of 2015, being a quarrying lease holder to mine and extract building stones, laid challenge against Ext.P10 notice issued by the second respondent. His principal contention is that though he has all the requisite permissions under law to carry on the quarrying operations, the second respondent has directed the petitioner not to use any machinery operated by electrical or any other power until the petitioner obtains permit under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act ('the Act' for brevity). According to him Ext.P10 is illegal and arbitrary.

2. The third respondent therein, said to be a resident in the vicinity, filed W.P.(C)No.14951 of 2014 to restrain the petitioner from carrying on the quarrying operations unless and until he obtains the necessary licence and environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, in terms of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (AIR 2012 SC 1386).

3. Since both the issues are interconnected and the proceedings in both the writ petitions are between the same parties, this Court has felt it desirable to dispose of both the writ pet