1. The petitioners are aggrieved with Ext.P10 order passed by the Panchayat Council, purportedly under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [for brevity, the Act of 1994]. The petitioners' contention is that, Section 233 is not applicable and a renewal has to be considered by the Secretary under Section 232 of the Act of 1994; with the Council conferred with appellate powers.

2. The petitioners were conducting a power laundry unit in the property from 2007 onwards. Originally, the petitioners had applied under Section 233, granted permission to establish by the Council and issued with a licence as is seen at Ext.P3. In the subsequent years also the petitioners obtained renewal of license from the Secretary under Section 232, which is evidenced at Exts.P4 & P5. The unit was taken over by the financier, when default occurred in the loan availed by the petitioners for setting up the unit. As of now, the petitioners have been permitted restoration, in so far as the petitioners having satisfied the loan account.

3. The petitioners obtained a fresh Consent to Operate as is indicated at Ext.P6 from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, which is valid till October, 2017. The petitioner then applied for renewal of the licence since the petitioner already had a permission under Section 233 of the Act from the Council. It is seen from Ext.P10 that the Secretary, who has to grant the renewal, has recommended such renewal also. For some reason, the matter was placed before the Council and the Council rejected it by Ext.P10.

4. The petitioners' contention is that the establishment of the unit having been in 2007, there is no requirement for a fresh order under Section 233 of the Act of 1994 from the Council of the Panchayat and a renewal would suffice. The learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat would submit that admittedly, there is a discontinuation of the unit and when the present application was made, it has to be deemed to be one under Section 233.

5. It is not the case of the Panchayat that the unit was dismantled and taken away or a new one is established. The reason for the closure of the unit for a period is sufficiently explained by the petitioner. The unit existed there, but no operations were conducted. Now, when the renewal is sought for with Consent to Operate obtained from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, there is no reason why the matter should be placed before the Council.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies on a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat, Kottayam and another v. Johny Roy [2013 (3) KHC 857], wherein this Court had considered the issue and held so in paragraph 18:

"18. However, if the application is filed for establishing a unit which does not come under Section 233 of the Act and if it comes only under Section 232 of the Act, or under Rule 12(3) of the D&O Rules, the license is related to be issued only by the Secretary."

7. The above cited decision was in the context of a policy decision taken by the Panchayat not to allow any quarries within its jurisdiction. The declaration aforementioned also was in a slightly different context. However, the Division Bench examined Section's 232 and 233 of the Act of 1994 to find that the grant of license has to be decided by the Panchayat and the issuance of license is to be done by the Secretary. The grant to be decided by the Panchayat under section 233 is only for the construction of factories and the installation of machinery and when renewal is sought for, a licensee need not approach the Panchayat Council every time. The renewal is to be granted under section 232 and the restriction is only in carrying on activities, likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property; without a license.

8. Further it is to be noticed that even under Section 233 the Council cannot by itself come to a decision of contamination being possible or pollution occasioned. By