The judgment established the principle that public protests cannot hold the rule of law for ransom and negate the statutory mandate, emphasizing the importance of considering applications for renewal of licenses in accordance with the law, despite public protests.

W.P. (C) Nos. 11011 and 11013/2015 were filed by two companies respectively seeking renewal of D&O licence by the respondent Grama Panchayat to enable the said companies to carry on with their quarry operations. The same companies have also filed W.P. (C) Nos.11012 & 11014/2015 respectively seeking the self same relief concerning their crusher units. Since identical issues have been raised, involving the same set of respondents, this Court proposes to dispose of all the four writ petitions through a common judgment.

2. To begin with, there is not much factual controversy in the writ petitions. The petitioners have their respective units - mining and crusher units - functioning for the past couple of years. Since the D&O licence was to come to an end by 31.03.2015, which period has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners saying that in some cases it is up to 30.04.2015, the petitioners are said to have submitted applications for renewal of the licences. Questioning the inaction on the part of the respondent Grama Panchayat in considering those applications, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have submitted applications for renewal of D&O licence in strict statutory compliance, having all the other requisite permits and licences. According to him, there is no hindrance whatsoever for the respondent Grama Panchayat to consider those applications expeditiously.

4. The learned counsel for the Grama Panchayat, on instructions, has submitted that though the Grama Panchayat is inclined to consider the applications, it could not take any initiative in that regard owing to public protest. To a specific query from this Court, the learned counsel for the Grama Panchayat has replied that, apart from the public protest, there is no other impediment for the Grama Panchayat to consider the applications. He has also submitted that the units being functional, no violation has been brought to the notice of the Grama Panchayat.

5. This Court has observed in numerous writ petitions a common theme running through: the Local Self Governments are unable to discharge their statutory functions, despite the applicants' eligibility to obtain, as in this case, licences, solely on the ground that there have been public protests concerning the issues.

6. Indeed, peaceful protest is a constitutionally consecrated right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. At any rate, it is used as a measure to bring to the notice of the executive the shortcomings in their administration or concerning any policy prerogatives that may have been affecting the public at large.

7. As public protests are the order of the day, exerting, some times justifiably and some other times not so justifiably, enormous pressure on the public functionaries, especially at the local government level, it is apposite to dwell on the issue with some detail in the present disposition.

8. Protest is a symbol of strident and vibrant democracy. It is thinking out loud in a democratic discourse -- a discourse nevertheless. Public protest is a quasi-legal mechanism at the hands of the general populace for a policy change or even nullification, but not statutory annihilation; whereas the exercise of franchise is the very legal mechanism for the same purpose. Thus, the general elections being a constitutional and statutory protest against or affirmation of the executive and legislative policies, public protests, on the other hand, are the intermittent instances of `thinking-aloud' in between. The core constitutional principle of a Republic is the notion that a democratic government, paradoxical as it sounds, is a government of laws, not of men of majority. In Marbury v. Madison, [5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803)], Chief Justice Marshall has, in unmistakable terms, echoed the words of John Adams that the Government of United States is a government of laws and not of men. It rings true of an