IMPORTANT POINT
An application under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is not maintainable if a remedy exists under Section 276, as the power to grant a licence includes the power to cancel it.

JUDGMENT :

GOPINATH P., J.

The short question and the only one that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Government could exercise its jurisdiction under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1994 Act’) against Ext.P11 decision of the committee of the Aryanad Grama Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Panchayat’) in the light of the bar created by sub-section (3) of Section 191 of the 1994 Act. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are noticed below:-

2. The 9th respondent is a Company engaged in executing an infrastructure project commonly known as the ‘Vizhinjam Port’ at Vizhinjam in Thiruvananthapuram District. It had, in connection with the construction activities of the Port, intended to set up a stone (granite) quarry in certain Government land falling within the limits of the Panchayat. When its application for license from the Panchayat under Section 233 of the 1994 Act was not processed, it approached this Court by filing a writ petition (W.P(C)No.35965/2022), which was allowed by Ext.P8 judgment dated 23-12-2022, finding that by virtue of the operation of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 236 of the 1994 Act, the 9th respondent had a deemed licence. This Court therefore directed the Panchayat to issue a D&O/Trade licence in paper form to the 9th respondent. Accordingly, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.P9 licence on 05-01-2023. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Panchayat Committee under the provisions of Section 276 of the 1994 Act against the grant of the licence, and the Panchayat Committee by Ext.P11 decided to cancel the licence. The decision of the Panchayat Committee was communicated to the 9th respondent by Ext.P11(a) issued by the President of the Panchayat. On receipt of Ext.P11(a), the 9th respondent chose to file an application under Section 191 of the 1994 Act before the Government and the Government by Ext.P12 order, stayed the operation of the decision of the Panchayat Committee pending disposal of the matter by the Government. The petitioner is thus before this Court challenging Ext.P12 and taking the specific contention that in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 191 of the 1994 Act, the 9th respondent could not have maintained any application before the Government.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Sections 191 & 276 of the 1994 Act and also to the fact that permission was earlier denied to a third party for carrying out quarrying operations at the same site, and without any just cause or reason the Government has interfered with the decision of the Panchayat Committee. The learned counsel has also placed for my consideration the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Haridas V. V. (Dr.) MD v. State of Kerala; 2022 (7) KHC 441, and has submitted that the said decision is not authority for the proposition that an application under Section 191 of the 1994 Act could be maintained where a remedy under Section 276 of the 1994 Act was available to the 9th respondent.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat would also support the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the remedy of the 9th respondent against the decision taken by the Panchayat Committee was to file an appeal/revision before the Tribunal under Section 276 of the 1994 Act and the application before the Government under Section 191 of the 1994 Act was not maintainable in view of the specific bar in sub-section (3) of Section 191 of the 1994 Act.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioner. It is submitted that there is absolutely no bonafidesin the contention now taken before this Court. It is submitted that the wordings of Section 191 of the 1994 Act clearly indicate that the Government exercis