Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The case involves two writ petitions concerning the legality of actions taken by a Panchayat regarding the cancellation of a permit for constructing a telecommunication tower (!) .

2. The petitioner challenged the Panchayat's resolution to cancel the permit, arguing that the Panchayat exceeded its powers by annulling a permit granted by the Secretary within his jurisdiction (!) (!) .

3. The permit was originally issued to a company for constructing a mobile base station tower, and subsequent resolutions sought to cancel this permit, which the petitioner contended was beyond the Panchayat’s authority (!) .

4. The order of the Tribunal set aside the resolution that canceled the permit, holding that the Panchayat exceeded its powers and that the formal communication of the decision (Ext. P3) was appealable under the relevant law (!) (!) (!) .

5. The Tribunal's jurisdiction included examining the legality of the actions and decisions of the Panchayat and its officials, and it had the authority to set aside resolutions based on the legality of the underlying decisions (!) (!) .

6. The communication of the resolution (Ext. P3) was deemed an appealable order, and the Tribunal was justified in examining the validity of the resolution itself, even if the resolution was not directly challenged (!) (!) .

7. The failure to challenge subsequent resolutions (Ext. P2) was not fatal because those resolutions were not communicated to the respondent and were dependent on the initial resolution, which was challenged and set aside (!) (!) (!) .

8. The decision to cancel the permit on the grounds of health hazard or violation of Coastal Zone Regulations was found to be unsustainable, as the evidence and procedures did not support such reasons (!) (!) .

9. The Panchayat's action was also scrutinized for adherence to natural justice principles, with the court noting that the affected party was properly notified through the formal communication (Ext. P3), and the petitioner was a party to the proceedings (!) .

10. The court emphasized that the powers of the Panchayat to annul permits are limited to actions taken within the jurisdiction of the Secretary; beyond that, such actions are unlawful unless challenged through proper legal channels (!) .

11. The order of the Tribunal was upheld, and the writ petitions were dismissed, confirming that the Panchayat exceeded its powers in canceling the permit and that the Tribunal’s decision was within its jurisdiction (!) (!) .

12. The court clarified that the Panchayat cannot interfere with or annul permits granted by the Secretary if those actions are within his jurisdiction, and any such interference is unlawful (!) (!) .

These points summarize the core legal findings and reasoning in the case, highlighting the limits of Panchayat powers, the importance of proper communication of decisions, and the Tribunal’s authority to review and set aside unlawful resolutions.