W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUESDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 8TH BHADRA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 4851 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 RAJAN K.G., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. LATE Y. GEORGE, KILINILATH HOUSE, CHAYALODE P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 691556. 2 REENA ZACHARIAH, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. ZACHARIAH, CHERUVALLY MOOLA, VADAKKEKKARA, CHAYALODE P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 691556. 3 AJIN GEORGE JACOB, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, VICAR ST. GEORGE ORTHODOX CHURCH, CHAYALODE P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 691556. 4 ANNAMMA VARGHESE, AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. VARGHESE, CIRIYOL PUTHENVEEDU, CHAYALODE P. O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691556.** ## **BY ADV T.M.ABDUL LATIFF** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 2 : - **2 ENADIMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ENADIMANGALAM, ELAMANNOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 689645.** - **3 N.V. ASHOK KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.VENUGOPAL, MOHANAVILASOM, PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL, VETTITHITTA P.O., PATHANAPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 691551.** - **4 JACOB P. THOMAS S/O. THOMAS P. JACOB, PALAKKAL BUNGLAW, KARUVATTA MURI, PERINGANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 691551.** **R2 BY SRI.K.SHAJ, SC R3 BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.08.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).21480/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 3 : # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **TUESDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 8TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 21480 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** **N.V ASOK KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O VENUGOPAL, MOHANAVILASOM, PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL, VETTITHITTA P.O., PATHANAPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 691551** **BY ADVS. P.MARTIN JOSE P.PRIJITH THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R.GITHESH AJAY BEN JOSE MANJUNATH MENON SACHIN JACOB AMBAT ANNA LINDA V.J HARIKRISHNAN S. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) AJITH MURALI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001** - **2 ENADIMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ENADIMANGALAM, ELAMANNOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691524** W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 4 : - **3 THE SECRETARY, ENADIMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ENADIMANGALAM, ELAMANNOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN – 691524** **ADDL.4 RAJAN.K.G., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE Y.GEORGE, KILIMILATH HOUSE, CHAYALODE P.O., PATHANAMTHITA, PIN-691 556.** **ADDL.5 FR.AJIN.G.JACOB., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE JACOB, VICAR ST.GEORGE, ORTHODOX CHURCH, CHAYALODE P.O., PATHANAMTHITA, PIN-691 556.** - **ADDL.6 K.P.YOHANNAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.Y.PAPPACHAN, KILIMILATH HOUSE, CHAYALODE P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITA, PIN-691 556.** - **ADDL.7 AJEESH GEORGE, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE VARGHESE, PTA PRESIDENT (ST.GEORGE ASHRAM UP SCHOOL CHALAYODE), REKHA BHAVAN, CHAYALODE P.O., ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITA, PIN-691 556.** **(ADDITIONAL R4 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15-07-2022 IN IA 1/2022)** **BY ADVS. R2-3 BY SRI.K.SHAJ, SC ADDL.R4 TO R7 BY SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.08.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).4851/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 5 : ## **N. NAGARESH, J.** ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) Nos.4851 and 21480 of 2022 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` _Dated this the 30[th] day of August, 2022_ ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.4851/2022 have filed the writ petition seeking to set aside Ext.P1 order dated 12.01.2022 of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.133/2020, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the 3[rd] respondent. The 3[rd] respondent in W.P.(C) No.4851/2022 has filed W.P.(C) No.21480/2022 seeking to set aside Exts.P5 and P6 communication/minutes of the Enadimangalam Grama Panchayat. The parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed/marked in W.P.(C) No.4851/2022 (unless otherwise specified), for convenience. 2. The petitioners state that they are the residents of Ward No.15 of Enadimangalam Grama Panchayat. The 3[rd] W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 6 : respondent entered into an agreement with the 4[th] respondent by which the 4[th] respondent agreed to lease his property for extracting granite rock for a period of 5 years. The 3[rd] respondent obtained Clearance Certificate and Consent from the Pollution Control Board. The people in the area including the petitioners were not aware of the Clearance Certificate and Consent Letter issued by the Pollution Control Board. The petitioners submitted objections before the Panchayat and the Panchayat refused to issue licence under the Panchayat Raj Act and the D and O Rules. The order of the Panchayat refusing licence in the year 20192020 was taken up before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by the 3[rd] respondent and the Tribunal set aside the order as per Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal. It is challenging the said Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal that the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. The petitioners state that the 4[th] respondent owner of the property has terminated the agreement with the 3[rd] respondent and he is not willing to give his property now for W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 7 : quarrying. But, on the basis of the direction issued by the Tribunal holding that the licence cannot be denied, the Secretary is taking steps to issue Panchayat licence. The petitioners state that the 3[rd] respondent is not entitled to Panchayat Licence. 4. The 3[rd] respondent in his W.P.(C) No.21480/2022 submitted that he is an A-grade Contractor and had entered into a lease agreement with the 4[th] respondent for quarrying granite stone from the land having an extent of 89.03 Ares in Enadimangalam Village, for a period of five years. The 3[rd] respondent was issued with Letter of Intent for quarrying lease on 18.07.2018. The petitioner obtained Explosives Licence dated 21.09.2018 from the Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization. The 3[rd] respondent obtained explosive licence for carrying out blasting using explosives from the Deputy Chief Engineer of Explosives. Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance was issued to the 3[rd] respondent for a period of five years from 13.08.2018. The 3[rd] respondent was also issued with Consent to Operate by the Kerala State Pollution W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 8 : Control Board. 5. Thereafter, the 3[rd] respondent applied for Trade Licence before the Grama Panchayat under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, but the Secretary to Panchayat refused to process the application under the guise of a policy decision of the Panchayat. The 3[rd] respondent challenged the same before this Court filing W.P. (C) No.1716/2019 and by virtue of Ext.P2 judgment in WA No.706/2019, the Secretary was directed to consider the application for Trade Licence afresh. The Secretary, however, issued an order rejecting the application for Trade Licence. The 3[rd] respondent filed Appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. By Ext.P1 order, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Secretary and directed to consider the application of the 3[rd] respondent for Trade Licence. 6. The 3[rd] respondent had submitted application under Section 233 of the Act before the Secretary for licence, but the same was rejected as per Ext.P5. In Ext.P5, it was W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 9 : stated that the application for Trade Licence was rejected on the basis of the sentiments of the public as the quarry was harmful and hazardous, as resolved in Ext.P6 minutes of the Panchayat meeting. Exts.P5 and P6 are illegal, contends the 3[rd] respondent. From Ext.P6, it is clear that the Secretary had expressed his assent for granting licence to the 3[rd] respondent as he has obtained all other required licences and permits. 7. The 3[rd] respondent stated that the 2[nd] respondentPanchayat has no primacy or any power to reject the application for Trade Licence as held by a Full Bench of this Court in _**Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala and others** [2019 (4) KHC 553 (FB)]_ . The 2[nd] respondent-Panchayat cannot sit over the expert opinion of the authorities, under the guise of public protest and cannot meddle with the licensing authority of the Secretary. Exts.P5 and P6 are arbitrary and go against the direction in Ext.P2 and against the law laid down by this Court, contends the 3[rd] respondent. W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 10 : 8. Petitioners 1 and 3 in W.P.(C) No.4851/2022 are additional respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.(C) No.21480/2022. The petitioners along with additional respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.(C) No.21480/2022 filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the petitioners contended that the question as to whether a Trade Licence can be granted without obtaining permission under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act for installation of machinery was left to be decided. An application under Section 232 for Trade Licence cannot be decided without considering the issue as to whether a licence under Section 233 is required. The 3[rd] respondent's application for the year 2018-2019 stated that the machinery that will be used is jack hammer and Hitachi. The Explosives Licence shows the nature of the explosives used and such explosives are used for blasting of heavy rock in which case heavy machinery will have to be deployed. The Environmental Clearance Certificate No.37/2018 dated 13.08.2018 issued by the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Pathanamthitta also shows that the W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 11 : method of mining is open cast semi mechanized and the capacity of production is 26541 Metric Ton. The said authority has fixed several pre-conditions to be followed which are not complied till date. 9. The petitioners are residents of the area and it is their constitutional right to have a peaceful living. The area has abundant presence of peacock and other birds including Vezhambal. Monkey habitats are also present in the area. The right of citizens under Article 21 cannot be ignored by the Panchayat and constitutional right of the citizens are to be protected by the Panchayat. Further, the Secretary has stated that there is no Short Firer's Certificate to the applicant for carrying out mining operation and the explosives licence issued was only for the purpose of digging well, road construction and for agricutural operations which means that the licence is not intended for quarrying. The Secretary has stated that the said licence period expired on 18.09.2017. The property is a rubber plantation and if quarrying activities are carried out, it will alter the nature and W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 12 : character of the property. As per the law laid down by this Court based on the provisions in the Land Reforms Act, no permission can be granted for quarrying in a plantation land. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing official respondents, the learned Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayat and the learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent. 11. The question to be decided is whether Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and Exts.P5 and P6 communication/minutes of the Grama Panchayat (in W.P.(C) No.21480/2022) are legal and sustainable and in view of the alleged withdrawal by the 4[th] respondent of the agreement for use of land for mining, whether respondents 1 and 2 can be desisted from issuing licences under the Panchayat Raj Act. 12. By order dated 08.11.2019 of the Panchayat Secretary, the application submitted by the 3[rd] respondent for Trade Licence was rejected. The 3[rd] respondent filed appeal W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 13 : before the Tribunal invoking Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The Tribunal found that rejection of application for licence submitted by the petitioner on the ground that no installation permit was obtained by the 3[rd] respondent is unsustainable since the authorities had visited the site and had found that there are no permanent installations in the site. 13. The counsel for the petitioner would argue that a Trade Licence cannot be granted without obtaining permission under Section 233. The Tribunal has categorically found that competent authorities have visited the site and found that there are no permanent installations in the site. None of the authorities have a case that there are permanent installations inviting application of Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Therefore, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner in that regard is only to be rejected. 14. The Tribunal further found that in case of density of population or likelihood of nuisance and pollution, the W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 14 : Panchayat can give directions to avoid nuisance/pollution, but to deny licence on the ground of the activity being objectionable due to density of population, Panchayat has to obtain expert opinion. The Secretary of Panchayat has no authority to reject application for licence without the support of expert opinion in such circumstances. 15. The Tribunal further held that by virtue of amendment to Section 233, the Grama Panchayat does not enjoy primacy of powers to refuse application seeking permission for construction or establishment of a factory, workshop or work place. The 3[rd] respondent has obtained requisite Licences, Permits and Consents from statutory authorities. For the said reasons, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 08.11.2019 and directed the Panchayat Secretary to take a decision on the application of the 3[rd] respondent. 16. The counsel for the petitioner would urge that there is presence of peacock and other birds in the area and the area is a monkey habitat. In that regard, it has to be W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 15 : noted that the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority has conducted enquiry and thereafter has issued Environmental Clearance to the 3[rd] respondent's project. If the quarrying activities by the 3[rd] respondent would affect flora and fauna in the area, it is for the Environment Impact Assessment Authority to deal with the matter. The Environment Impact Assessment Authority has granted Environmental Clearance to the 3[rd] respondent. This Court finds no reason to conclude that the competent authority has overlooked the matter. 17. The contention of the petitioners is that the apprehension regarding life and property is a material factor to be considered by the Panchayat while processing an application for Trade Licence and that the public interest cannot be overlooked. In our system governed by the rule of law, the State has constituted various statutory authorities including Environmental Authorities, Pollution Control Boards, Explosives Licensing authorities, etc., who are specialised in their respective fields. W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 16 : 18. Such statutory authorities are constituted to protect public interest, in their respective fields. When such statutorily constituted authorities give licences and consents for establishing an industrial unit or work place, after conducting inspections and making due enquiries, it has to be presumed that such Licences and Consents are issued/given in accordance with the statutory provisions and keeping in mind the public interest though their decisions can be challenged on the grounds of procedural irregularities or perversity of findings. The petitioners have not projected any such irregularities in the matter. 19. A Local Self Government Institution cannot have primacy over statutorily constituted authorities on issues falling within their respective domains. Mere apprehensions of possible threat to life and property cannot be a ground or reason for a Local Self Government Institution to withhold or deny a licence or permit to a citizen. In view of the reasonings given in Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with Ext.P1 order of W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 17 : the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.133/2020. 20. The 3[rd] respondent is challenging Exts.P5 and P6 in W.P.(C) No.21480/2022. By Ext.P5 communication, the Secretary to the Panchayat has rejected the application for licence to run quarry, submitted by the 3[rd] respondent for the reason that the Panchayat Committee has unanimously directed the Secretary not to issue quarry licence in view of public protest and since there are Ashramam and School in the quarry area which is densely populated. 21. Ext.P6 is the Minutes of the Panchayat Committee meeting held on 07.06.2022. In the meeting, the Panchayat Committee noted that though there is no houses or institutions within 50 metres of Quarry area, there is Church, School, Ashramam, Aramana and houses within 70 metre radius. At Pulimarappara, a house wall is seen cracked. In view of public protest and in view of the fact that there is no 8 metre wide road to the quarry, the Committee decided not to give licence to the quarry. W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 18 : 22. At the outset, it has to be noted that a licence for quarry is to be granted or refused by the Secretary of the Panchayat. The Secretary being the statutory licensing authority, the Secretary has to consider the application for issuance of licence independently uninfluenced by anyone or anybody. In this case, the Secretary has abdicated his licensing powers without considering the application for licence submitted by the 3[rd] respondent for the reason that the Panchayat Committee has passed a resolution against grant of licence. 23. This Court has held in the judgment in _**Abdul Basheer v. Cherupuzha Grama Panchayat** [2021 (5) KLT 432]_ that a Panchayat cannot refuse renewal of licence solely based on public complaints. Exts.P5 and P6 are therefore legally unsustainable. 24. It is to be noted that the 3[rd] respondent had obtained necessary Licences and Consents from all other statutory authorities for running the quarry, including consent from Pollution Control Board, licence from PESO, Letter of W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 19 : Intent from Mining and Geology Department, Environmental Clearance from DEIAA, etc. When competent statutory authorities having expertise in the field of environmental protection and pollution have granted permission based on requisite enquiries, the Panchayat authorities cannot refuse licence, on the ground of public protests or of perceived damage to public health. 25. In the judgment in _**Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat, Kottayam and another v. Johny Roy** [2013 (3) KHC 857],_ a Division Bench of this Court held that in case where an application is filed by a person seeking to establish a factory, work place or other establishments, the said application cannot be summarily rejected by stating that the Panchayat has taken a policy decision not to permit any such establishments in the Panchayat area. Such an authority is not vested with the Panchayat, under the provisions of Sections 166(1), 232, 233 or the D&O Rules. 26. For all the afore reasons, this Court finds that the decision of the Secretary to Grama Panchayat contained in W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 20 : Exts.P5 (in W.P.(C) No.21480/2022) is illegal and unsustainable. Ext.P6 decision of the Panchayat Committee cannot in any manner influence the decision of the Secretary while considering the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of licence. In the result, W.P.(C) No.4851/2022 is dismissed. W.P.(C) No.21480/2022 is allowed to the extent of setting aside Ext.P5 and declaring that Ext.P6 decision of the Panchayat Committee cannot in any manner influence the decision of the Secretary while considering the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of licence. The 3[rd] respondent-Secretary to Grama Panchayat in W.P.(C) No.21480/2022 is directed to reconsider the application for Trade Licence submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of one month. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/26.08.2022 W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 21 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4851/2022** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.133/2020 DATED 12.1.2022 OF TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.706/2019 DATED 28.03.2019. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.36659/2018 DATED 26.06.2019. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER DATED 8.11.2019 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.35313/2019 DATED 29.01.2020. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2022 TO THE PETITIONERS. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY JACOB P. THOMAS DATED 8.7.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE STUDENTS SITTING IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROPERTY.** SR W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 22 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21480/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO.37/2018 DATED 13-08-2018 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA TO THE PETITIONER FOR A PERIOD OF 5 YEARS. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26-06-2017 IN W.P(C) NO.36659 OF 2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29-01-2020 IN W.P(C) NO. 35313 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12-04-2019 IN APPEAL NO.133 OF 2020 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.AC2-2474/22 DATED 13-06-2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT HELD ON 07-06-2022.** - **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR ISSUANCCE OF A LICENSE UNDER SECTION 232 OF THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ, ACT, 1994, ON 19.07.2022.** - **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF EXIHIBIT P7 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 19.07.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **Exhibit R4-1 TRUE COPY OF THE D'O' LICENSE FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 15/10/2018** W.P.(C) Nos.4851 & 21480 of 2022 : 23 : **Exhibit R4-2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER NO.QCO/PTA/229/2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 12/10/2018 Exhibit R4-3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/3/2018 FROM THE OFFICE OF GEOLOGIST PATHANAMTHITTA Exhibit R4-4 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.E/SC/KL/22/1418(E67637) Exhibit R4-5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 13/8/2018** **Exhibit R4-6 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH Exhibit R4-6(a) TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH Exhibit R4(b) TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH Exhibit R4(c) TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH Exhibit R4-7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8/11/2019** SR