The independent jurisdiction of the Panchayat Secretary in trading license applications must not be interfered with by the Panchayat Committee.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P6 and P7 and quash the same.

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of a declaration declaring that Petitioner has secured a deemed trade license with effect from 20.07.2025, due to the failure of the 2nd Respondent in communicating any orders on the application for trade license submitted by the Petitioner within the statutory period of 30 days.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to issue the trade license to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 10 days.

iv. Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction that may be deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

v. Issue such other appropriate order or direction dispensing with the filing of English translation of the vernacular documents produced along with the writ petition.”

[SIC]

2. According to the petitioner, he obtained all statutory licenses/permits from all statutory authorities to start a granite building stone quarry, except a trade license from the Panchayat. When the petitioner submitted an application for trade license before the 2^nd respondent-Secretary of the Panchayat, the Panchayat Committee, usurping the jurisdiction of the Secretary took Ext.P7 decision not to grant license to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 decision is taken on the basis of apprehensions of environmental impact and public protests. Pursuant to Ext.P7 decision, Ext.P6 letter was issued by the Secretary to the petitioner informing the rejection. According to the petitioner, an application for a trade license under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 (for short, ‘Act’), is to be considered independently by the Secretary of the Panchayat. The Panchayat Committee has absolutely no role whatsoever in the consideration of an application under Section 232 of the Act. Any interference by the Panchayat Committee in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Secretary is a violation of Section 185B of the . The petitioner relied the judgment of this Court inAnish Abraham v.

Elappara Grama Panchayat [ 2023 KHC 9346 ].

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.

4. This Court perused Exts.P6 and P7. A perusal of the same would show that the Panchayat Committee had decided the matter. In the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Anish case (supra), the Panchayat Secretary has to decide an application independently, without interference of the Panchayat committee. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, and the mater is to be reconsidered by the 2^nd respondent.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) Exts.P6 and P7 are set aside.

ii) The 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the trade license application submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, without interference of the Panchayat Committee.