SIJO MATHEW Vs. KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied to the second respondent for a licence under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act for mining building stones from the lands belonging to his mother. Ext.P1 is a copy thereof. The said application was rejected by the Committee of the Panchayat that met on 16.6.2010 on the short ground that though all the requisite records have been submitted, the grant of a licence can lead to complaints from various corners. The said resolution of the Panchayat, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext.P3, is under challenge in this writ petition. It is contended that the Committee of the Panchayat has usurped the powers of the Secretary and that the Secretary ought to have taken a decision on the petitioner's application independently. Reliance is placed on Section 185B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Dharmadom Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi v. Dharmadom Grama Panchayat, 2010 2 KerLT 194 in support of the said contention.

(2.) The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is contended that certain complaints have been filed before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission against quarrying operations being conducted in the lands belonging to the petitioner's mother. It is also stated that in Ext.P1 application the purpose for which the licence is applied for has not been mentioned.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar by Sri. Jobi Jose Kondody, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. M.V. Joy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. It is not in dispute that under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act the petitioner's application for a licence under Section 232 of the said Act has to be decided independently by the Secretary of the Panchayat. From the decision taken by the Secretary of the Panchayat an appeal lies to the Committee of the Panchayat as provided under Section 276(1) of the said Act. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Dharmadom Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi v. Dharmadom Grama Panchayat (supra) interpreting Section 185B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act held that where any officer of the Panchayat is conferred with any statutory powers and functions to be exercised independently and solely, the Panchayat, the Panchayat President, Chairman of the Standing Committee or any member shall not interfere or influence in the exercise of such powers and functions by that officer. It was held that any interference by the Panchayat or its President or any Member or Chairman of the Standing Committee in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Secretary of a Panchayat in the matter of grant of a building permit is without jurisdiction. In the light of the statutory provisions contained in Section 185B referred to above and the declaration of law made by this Court in the aforesaid decision, it has to be necessarily held that the rejection of the licence applied for by the petitioner by the Panchayat cannot be sustained. Ext.P1 discloses that in column 4 thereof the petitioner has not disclosed the purpose for which the licence is applied for. However, it is evident from Ext.P3 that the Panchayat understood the application as one to operate the quarry to manufacture building stones. However, in view of the technical objection raised by the Panchayat, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should submit a fresh application duly filling up the columns in order to enable the second respondent to reconsider his application and to take an appropriate decision thereon.