KAROOR PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUANCE of licence is a quasi judicial act. Even if the applicant for the licence in question is all alone, the authority concerned with the grant of licence is required to consider the pros and cons of the situation. I n this context, a question of law of genera! importance requires consideration and consequent decision. The question is whether in the matter of grant or rejection of licence, the licensing authority itself could be said to be aggrieved in the process so that the question can be agitated before the higher authorities.

(2.) THE question comes up for consideration under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960. THE procedure with regard to the functioning of the Panchayat after its establishment shows that the panchayat functions under the president ship of the President of the said Panchayat or in his absence by the Vice-president and in the absence of both by a member chosen by the meeting to preside over the occasion. THE procedure further spells out that the proceedings of the meetings are required to be recorded in what are known as minutes of the meeting and decision in regard thereto is commonly known as the resolution of the Panchayat. THE resolution of the Panchayat is to be put into practice in accordance therewith by the executive officer. Sometimes there are stages leading to the passing of the resolution of the panchayat for which the committees are constituted in accordance with the procedure. Even in regard to situations of dispute, such a dispute is to be taken up for consideration by the Deputy Director of Panchayat who has to either decide it himself or has to collect material on the basis of enquiry in regard thereto.

(3.) IT is necessary to refer to the said provision of appeal and revision (sec. 144 of the act) in the context of the question involved, both as regards the maintenance of the revision application before the State Government and also in regard to the question of maintainability of petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in this situation. The said provision relates to the action of the executive authority under the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder and it is enacted in the context that any person aggrieved by an order or an action of the Panchayat may appeal to the Deputy Director of Panchayat (respondent No. 2) who may pass orders under the said power (see S. 144 (2) of the act ). Apart therefrom the State Government has a discretionary revisional power, on consultation in a proper situation either of the Collector, the Director, Deputy Director or such other officer or authority, at any time, either suo motu or on application to call for and examine the record and pass appropriate orders [see S. 144 (3)]. The question in the context for consideration is as to whether there is any remedy by way of a legal right other in an the person who is in the nature of an applicant for the licence in question, to take resort to the proceedings of S. 144 of the Act. On analysis of the statutory provision of S. 144 of the Act it is more than clear that the remedy relates to the action taken by the panchayat through its executive officer, specifically restricted to any person aggrieved in the situation, in the sense that the licence is granted when there is no cause of action for an appeal or when the licence is rejected by resort to the provisions of S. 144 of the Act. Even thereafter a person can be aggrieved even against the action of the appellate authority and in that context the State government has powers of revision which is specified either as suo mote or on the application obviously of the person aggrieved as referred to above. The statutory provisions, especially the provisions of appeal and revision, are always to be considered creatures of statute and are required to be confined to the language of the provision under consideration.