SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question and the only one that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Government could exercise its jurisdiction under Sec. 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the '1994 Act') against Ext.P11 decision of the committee of the Aryanad Grama Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat') in the light of the bar created by sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 191 of the 1994 Act. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are noticed below:-

(2.) The 9th respondent is a Company engaged in executing an infrastructure project commonly known as the 'Vizhinjam Port' at Vizhinjam in Thiruvananthapuram District. It had, in connection with the construction activities of the Port, intended to set up a stone (granite) quarry in certain Government land falling within the limits of the Panchayat. When its application for license from the Panchayat under Sec. 233 of the 1994 Act was not processed, it approached this Court by filing a writ petition (W.P(C)No.35965/2022), which was allowed by Ext.P8 judgment dtd. 23/12/2022, finding that by virtue of the operation of the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 236 of the 1994 Act, the 9th respondent had a deemed licence. This Court therefore directed the Panchayat to issue a D&O/Trade licence in paper form to the 9th respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Ss. 191 & 276 of the 1994 Act and also to the fact that permission was earlier denied to a third party for carrying out quarrying operations at the same site, and without any just cause or reason the Government has interfered with the decision of the Panchayat Committee. The learned counsel has also placed for my consideration the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Haridas V. V. (Dr.) MD v. State of Kerala; 2022 (7) KHC 441, and has submitted that the said decision is not authority for the proposition that an application under Sec. 191 of the 1994 Act could be maintained where a remedy under Sec. 276 of the 1994 Act was available to the 9th respondent.