Radhakrishnan, Ag. C. J.

The cardinal question to be considered in these cases is whether the second respondent Panchayat has got jurisdiction either to issue or cancel the licence granted to the petitioner for setting up the factory at Kanjikode situated in an industrial area notified as Integrated Industrial Township, Palghat by the Government of Kerala vide SRO No 730/01 issued by notification G.O. 672/2001/AD dated 24.7.2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of Sections 2 and 5 of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 (Act 5 of 2000), in short Development Act.

2. Petitioner is a private limited Company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the manufacture, bottling and sale of soft drinks like Pepsi, Mirinda, Seven Up etc., the factory of which is set up in the industrial area, Kanjikode. The petitioner company had made an application for the issue of licence for setting up of a factory in an industrial area through the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (K.S.I.D.C) to the Single Window Clearance State Board constituted under the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 (in short "the Development Act"). The State Board after considering the application preferred by the petitioner directed the second respondent to grant necessary permission / industrial license to the petitioner for putting up the factory in the industrial area. The second respondent on receiving the recommendation from the State Board issued a license in favour of M/s ABMC for a period of five years from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 evidenced by Ext. P4.

3. Petitioner has been carrying on the manufacturing process complying with all the statutory requirements and at no point of time they have violated any of the conditions in Ext P4. Due to some public agitation against the functioning of the factory the petitioner had to move this court for police protection and protection was granted by this court as per order dated 20.01.2003. The second respondent later issued a notice No A4 262/2000 to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled due to the allegation of over exploitation of ground water by the petitioners and the consequent shortage of drinking water. Ext. P5 is the notice dated 20.05.2003 served on the petitioners. Petitioner submitted a reply denying the allegation and also submitted that the Panchayat has no jurisdiction either to issue or cancel licence issued to the petitioner since the power to grant licence or to cancel the licence vests with the Board constituted under the Development Act, 1999. Petitioner also referred to the notification, G.O. No 672/2001/AD dated 24.7.2001 notifying the area as an Integrated Industrial Township, Palghat and the petitioner's factory is situated in that area. Further it was also stated that the Government have constituted a Single Window Clearance Board for the said area known as "the Integrated Industrial Township Single Window Clearance Board", Palghat and powers are vested in that Board under the provisions of the Development Act.

4. Petitioner was however served with Order No A4-353/2003 dated 22.08.2003 by the Panchayat cancelling the license. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has approached this court by filing W.P.C. No 27334 of 2003 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 order passed by the second respondent Panchayat and also for a direction to the second respondent to refrain from imposing any condition/restriction to the license issued to the petitioner without the directions from the Single Window Clearance State Board constituted under the Development Act, 1999. Petitioner has also filed I.A. No 3089 of 2007 seeking a declaration that the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 are not applicable to the Kanjikode unit of the petitioner and that the second respondent Panchayat does not have any administrati