Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a licensee having the privilege to vend toddy, is aggrieved by Exhibit P3 stop memo issued by the first respondent Grama Panchayat. In fact, the respondent Grama Panchayat has issued the said stop memo directing the petitioner not to carry on with his trade in toddy on twin grounds: that the shop has been causing obstruction to the public; that petitioner has been running the shop within the territorial limits of the Grama Panchayat without licence. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has got Exhibits P1 and P1(a) Abkari licences to carry on the trade. He has further contended that the petitioner is not required to take any licence from the Grama Panchayat. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the statement filed by the second respondent, the Government.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Grama Panchayat has, however, made strenuous efforts to counter the contentions of the petitioner. He has submitted that it is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to obtain a licence from the respondent Grama Panchayat in terms of Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (the 'Act' for brevity), read with Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (the 'Rules' for brevity).

4. In support of his submissions that obtaining licence from Grama Panchayat is sine qua non, the learned counsel has also placed reliance on Bosco Antony v. State of Kerala and Others, 2007 (4) ILR 357, a judgment rendered by a learned Division Bench of this Court.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that, since by way of an amendment Section 232 of the Act has been diluted, the question of a precondition compelling the petitioner to have the necessary licence does not arise.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Grama Panchayat, as well as the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record.

7. Indeed, the issue raised in the writ petition lies in a narrow compass: whether the petitioner is required to take D&O licence from the respondent Grama Panchayat? The question of law that involves is whether Section 232 (1) read with item 139 of Schedule I annexed to the Rules mandates that the petitioner, as a licensee to vend toddy, is required to take the necessary licence.

8. Since much depends on the interpretation of Section 232, it is profitable to extract the same which is as under:

“232. Purpose for which places may not be used without a licence – (1) The Village Panchayat may notify that no place in the Panchayat area shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the rules made in this behalf being purposes which, in the opinion of Government, are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property, without a licence issued by the (Secretary) and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence:

Provided that no such notification shall take effect until the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication.”

9. It is not in dispute that through an amendment with effect from 24.03.1999 Sub-sections 2 to 4 and explanation appended to Section 232 stood omitted. Since the entire controversy has arisen subsequently, it suffices if I take into account only Section 232 (1) without reference to those that had been omitted way back in 1999.

10. A close scrutiny of the provision makes it clear that notifying the trade is different from notifying the area. The statute assigns the duty of notification concerning the trade to the Government; that of the area, to the Grama Panchayat. In fact, pursuant to the power conferred through Section 232 (1) of the Act, the Government has issued the Rules, of which Section 3 is relevant. It is beneficial for our purpos