The court held that only the Secretary of the Panchayat holds the authority to consider applications for trade licenses under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, affirming limitations on the Panchayat's jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.Dias, J.

This writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P13 decision passed by the Village Panchayat rejecting the petitioner's application for trade licence.

2. The petitioner firm is an holder of Ext.P1 letter of intent to conduct quarrying operations in a property situated within the territorial limits of the 1^st respondent - Panchayat. The petitioner has received all the requisite licences and permissions from the competent statutory authorities. Consequently, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application dated 11.03.2025 before the 2^nd respondent to obtain permission under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 r/w Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as” the Act and Rules”), as evidenced by Ext.P11 receipt. By Ext.P12 communication dated 26.03.2025, the 2^nd respondent has forwarded Ext.P13 decision of the Village Panchayat rejecting Ext.P9 application. Ext.P13 decision is illegal and arbitrary and against Section 232 r/w Rule 5A of the Act and Rules. Under Section 232 of the Act, it is only the Secretary, who is the competent authority to take a decision on an application for trade licence. The Village Panchayat has no jurisdiction to consider the said application. Therefore, Ext.P13 decision may be quashed.

3. The respondents has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that as the petitioner proposes to operate a quarry near a residential area, and there were widespread protests in view of anticipated landslides. Moreover, the Village Panchayat wanted to ascertain the ownership of the land and the places where the explosives would be stored. The contention of the petitioner is that they are entitled to the deemed licence. By Ext.R1(c) resolution, the Village Panchayat decided not to grant permission for installation of machineries in the property. There is no error in Ext.P13 decision of the Village Panchayat and hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit refuting the allegations and the counter affidavit. It is contended that the order issued by the Village Panchayat as Ext.P13 is not valid since it is passed by an incompetent authority. Hence, the writ petition may be allowed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application for trade licence before the 2^nd respondent on 11.03.2025. In the above context, it is necessary to refer Section 232 of the Act, which reads as follows:-

“232. Purpose for which places may not be used without a license. - (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 without a license 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.”

7. A reading of the above provision explicitly demonstrates that it is only the Secretary of the Panchayat, who has the authority to consider an application for licence. It is also necessary to refer Section 185B of the Act, which reads as follows:-

“185 B. Exercise of statutory functions by the officers. - Where any officer of the panchayat is conferred with any statutory powers and functions to be exercised independently and solely, the panchayat, the panchayat President, Chairman of the Standing Committee or any member shall not interfere or influence in the exercise of such powers and functions by that officer.

8. A co-joint reading of the above provisions, undoubtedly establish that it is only the Secretary