The petitioner in this case had applied for permission to establish a Saw Mill. After originally receiving conditional permission to set up the mill the authority in charge suspended the authorization on the ground that the proposed industry would be a nuisance to the public in the area. It was also stated that the industry would emit noise by operation of the machinery, disturb the calm and peaceful environment of a residential area nearby and violate the provisions of the National Environmental Act. The court emphasized that the stage at which the complaint was made was the site clearance stage. It was the stage at which an industrialist was granted or refused permission to begin preparation for setting up his operations. Obtaining permission at that stage did not constitute the granting of a licence. A petitioner who received a favorable response to a site clearance application had to comply with the conditions upon which such clearance was granted. In any event, no operations could commence until the petitioner had obtained a licence under the National Environmental Act. The court, however, expected that the relevant authorities would hear neighbourhood objections, inform the industrialist of the objections, hear the views of the industrialist, and after weighing the corresponding evidence, decide that the licence would be granted or refused. The decision and the reasons should be communicated to the industrialist and the persons who raised objections. Publicity, transparency and fairness were essential if the goal of sustainable development was to be achieved. In the matter at hand, none of these elements were present and the respondents acted in an arbitrary manner in suspending the authorization granted earlier. Thus, the suspension of authority to proceed with the setting up of the Saw Mill was quashed.