1. The issue raised in these writ petitions are connected, and therefore, the cases were heard and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. For convenience, I shall make reference to the facts as pleaded in WP(C) No.15755/09.

3. The 2nd respondent is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The 2nd respondent submitted an application to the 1st respondent Panchayat for obtaining a building permit for the construction of a multi storied apartment complex. By Ext.P1 resolution, the Panchayat Committee in its meeting held on 25/4/2008 resolved not to grant permit applied for on the ground that if the project is allowed to come up, that will increase the water shortage in the area.

4. Contrary to Ext.P1, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.P2 building permit on 13/5/2008. Subsequently, Panchayat passed Ext.P4 resolution to cancell Ext.P2 building permit and on that basis, the Secretary then in office issued a communication to the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid proceedings initiated at the instance of the Panchayat, the 2nd respondent filed Appeal No.172/09 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal heard the appeal and by Ext .P5 order dated 17th of April, 2009 set aside Ext.P4 and the proceedings of the Secretary. According to the Tribunal, the power to grant building permit is within the exclusive power of the Secretary of the Panchayat, and the Committee of the Panchayat has no original or appellate power in so far as this issue is concerned. On that ground, Tribunal held Ext.P4 and the proceedings of the Secretary to be invalid. Tribunal also found that the cancellation of Ext.P2 building permit was on grounds which are alien to Rule 16 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and held the impugned proceedings vitiated for that reason as well. It is challenging Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal that the Dharmadom Paristhithi Samrakshna Samithi has filed WP(C) No.15755/09 and the Panchayat has filed WP(C) No.20952/09.

5. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that it was well within the power of the Panchayat to have passed Ext.P4 referred to above. They relied on Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act read with the Third Schedule and also Section 182 of the said Act.

6. Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act provides powers, duties and functions of the Village Panchayat and it provides that it shall be the duty of the Village Panchayat to meet the requirements of the Village Panchayat area in respect of matters enumerated in the Third Schedule. Regulation of building construction is enumerated as a mandatory function of the Village Panchayat. It is therefore contended that regulation of building construction being one of the mandatory functions of the Village Panchayat, it was well within the power of the Village Panchayat to have passed Exts.P1 and P4. It is further contended that if the Secretary of the Panchayat had any difference of opinion, the course available to the Secretary is as provided under Section 182 of the Act, which deals with the powers and functions of the Secretary. It is argued that under the proviso to this Section, where the Secretary is of opinion that any resolutions passed by the Panchayat has not been legally passed or is in excess of the powers conferred under the Act, he shall request in writing to the Panchayat, to review the resolution and express his views at the time of its review and that if the Panchayat upholds its previous decision, the matter shall be referred to the Government after intimation to the President and that if no decision of the Government is received within 15 days, such resolution shall be implemented and information thereof shall be given to the Government. On this basis, it is contended that the view taken by the Tribunal in Ext.P5 order is illegal.

7. However, I am not in a position to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. Although under Section 166 of the Kerala