JUDGMENT : C. JAYACHANDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner has been conducting quarrying operations since 2008 on the basis of valid quarrying permits issued. The quarrying operations got exhausted by 30.05.2022, namely, the date of expiry of the Environmental Clearance. Ext.P2 demand notice was issued to the petitioner alleging excess excavation within the permitted area. The same was challenged and ultimately got settled in the Adalat Scheme of the Government, vide Ext.P3. A revised notice was issued vide Ext.P4 and the petitioner remitted the entire dues, as could be seen from Exts.P5 and P6. A final quarry closure plan was submitted vide Ext.P7 on 27.11.2024 in respect of the area covered by Ext.P1 permit. Much later, the 1 st respondent issued the impugned Ext.P8 communication insisting for a fresh survey based on the Drone LiDAR method, introduced vide Ext.P9 Government Order (S.R.O. No.161/2025) issued on 14.02.2025. The short point canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the G.O issued on 14.02.2025 cannot govern Ext.P7 final quarry closure plan submitted on 27.11.2024. The final quarry closure plan/Ext.P7 has to be acted upon based on the law as it existed at the time of submission of such closure plan. Even in Ext.P9, the survey is contemplated only at the time of submission of the final quarry closure plan; and inasmuch as the final quarry closure plan precedes the date of Ext.P9, the methodology contemplated in Ext.P9 cannot be pressed into service, is the point moved. 2. Learned Government Pleader would submit that a statement has been filed opposing the relief sought for in this Writ Petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds substantial merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It goes without saying that a Government Order can only be treated as prospective, unless specifically made retrospective. There is no quarrel that Ext.P9 G.O was issued only on 14.02.2024. There is also no quarrel with respect to the date of application of final quarry closure plan vide Ext.P7, that is to say, 27.11.2024. Therefore, the requirements of Ext.P9 cannot be insisted upon for accepting Ext.P7 final quarry closure plan, which was filed as early as on 27.11.2024. A, more or less, similar issue has been considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.23811/2025. Therefore, the requirements of Ext.P9 cannot be insisted upon for accepting Ext.P7 final quarry closure plan, which was filed as early as on 27.11.2024. A, more or less, similar issue has been considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.23811/2025. As per judgment dated 05.08.2025, the legal question has been clarified as regards the operation of the Government Order, which has been produced in the instant Writ Petition as Ext.P9. 4. In the circumstances, Ext.P8 will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the 1 st respondent/Geologist to consider Ext.P7 application in the light of the law and the state of affairs prevailing as on the date of Ext.P7 application, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 1 st respondent, for compliance. This Writ Petition will stand disposed of, as above.