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 petitions through a common judgment. I take, for ease of reference and expression, the facts as pleaded in W.P.(C)No. 1996 of 2015, as well as the exhibits filed therein, as the basis for the discussion of the matter, apart from adverting to the parties as have been arrayed in the said writ petition. Brief Facts: W.P. (C) No.1996 of 2015:

4. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is said to have been issued with all the requisite licences, viz., Exts.P1 to P5 by different statutory authorities; however, the second respondent has still been obstructing the petitioner from carrying on the quarrying operations by issuing Ext.P10 notice directing the petitioner not to use any power driven machinery. The petitioner avers that Ext.P10 was issued by the second respondent only to ward off the threat of contempt in Con.Case (C)No.1378 of 2014 initiated by the third respondent on the allegation that the second respondent did not comply with Ext.P9 interim direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C)No.14951 of 2014.

W.P. (C) No.14951 of 2014:

5. The issue raised in this writ petition by the third respondent as the petitioner is that the petitioner has not obtained all the necessary licences or permits from the statutory authorities, and that he has especially not obtained the environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests in terms of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar (supra). There has not been much controversy on the factual front, however.

Rival Submissions: W.P. (C) No.1996 of 2015:

Petitioner's:

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 233B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (`the Act' for brevity) provides the exemptions to the stipulations enumerated under Section 233 of the Act. Referring to clause (d) thereof, he would contend that portable drilling machines are clearly exempted from the purview of obtaining prior permission from the first respondent.

7. The learned counsel has also contended that when the petitioner made the initial application to the second respondent, he has placed it before the first respondent, which, in turn, has issued Ext.P8, inasmuch as it is the first respondent that has to take a decision under Section 233 of the Act. Had the first respondent felt, submits the learned counsel, that the petitioner was not entitled to any exemption under Section 233B of the Act, it would have certainly considered that aspect. In other words, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent has consciously felt that power operated portable drilling machine has been exempted; and as such, it has never insisted on the petitioner's having permission in that regard.

Third Respondent's:

8. The learned counsel for the third respondent, on his part,