The Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has the exclusive authority to renew quarrying licenses, independent of committee resolutions and pending cases.

1. The petitioner, who is a grantee of Letter of Intent with respect to 4.990 Hectares of land comprised in Survey No.729 / PT in Peerumedu Taluk of Vagamon Village in Idukki District, has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P7 decision of the 1st respondent - Elappara Grama Panchayat and to declare that he is entitled to get the licence renewed as mandated as per the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and other Services) Rules , 1996.

2. The petitioner states that he holds a licence under S.232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 for conducting quarrying operations in an extent of 4.990 Hectares of land. On expiry of the period of licence, the petitioner submitted application for renewal in terms of the Rules, 1996. The 2nd respondent - Secretary to the Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P8 communication informing the petitioner about the decision of the Panchayat Committee taken on 17.03.2023. Ext.P7 is the decision of the Panchayat Committee.

3. The petitioner submits that reasons given in Ext.P7 are illegal and unsustainable. The petitioner had submitted application for renewal of licence. The authority competent to consider the licence is the 2nd respondent - Secretary to the Grama Panchayat and not the Committee of the Panchayat. For that reason alone, Ext.P7 is liable to be set aside.

4. Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the reasons given in Ext.P7 cannot stand the scrutiny of law. Pendency of W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2021 before this Court cannot by itself be a ground to deny renewal of an existing licence. The Panchayat Committee has found that the petitioner has not produced mining lease. The petitioner can obtain a mining lease only after obtaining all other licences and permits including a licence under the Rules, 1996. Furthermore, a clearance from the Standing Committee on the National Board for Wildlife cannot be insisted by the Panchayat authorities at this stage for renewal of Trade Licence, which is once issued. Exts.P7 and P8 are therefore liable to be set aside and respondents are compellable to renew the licence already granted to the petitioner.

5. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel denied all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner dated 03.03.2023, the Committee of the Elappara Grama Panchayat decided on 17.03.2023 that the application can be considered only after getting permission from the Forest and Wildlife Ministry. The Forest and Wildlife Ministry has not granted any permission and he has not obtained permission from the Mining and Geology Department also. By letter dated 03.04.2023, the 2nd respondent has communicated the same to the petitioner.

6. As per Ext.P7, the proposed quarry of the petitioner is situated 2.6 Kilometers away from the Wildlife Sanctuary, Idukki. The Ministry of Forest and Wildlife Sanctuary granted clearance subject to the condition that the petitioner has to get Consent from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife. So, the petitioner has to comply with the formalities.

7. The Standing Counsel further submitted that on enquiry by the 2nd respondent, even though the licence was granted for 22.07.2021 to 31.03.2023, the petitioner has not started quarry till then. So, this application has been considered as a fresh application for licence. Therefore, the 2nd respondent placed his application before the Panchayat Committee.

8. The area where the applicant proposed to conduct the quar