Only the Village Panchayat, not the Secretary, has jurisdiction under Section 238(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to issue directions, emphasizing collective decision-making in local governance.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" (i) to call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibits.P2 and P5 letters and P6 notice issued by the 2^nd respondent to the petitioner and quash the same being highly illegal and arbitrary by issuance of a writ of certiorari.

(ii) to issue a declaration that the 2^nd respondent has no authority whatsoever under Section 238 (1) (a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , to issued directions or notice as evinced from Exhibits.P2 and P5 letters and P6 notice."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P2, P5 and P6 issued by the 2^nd respondent to the petitioner, which was issued invoking the powers under Section 238 (1)(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short Act 1994). The short point raised by the petitioner is that, as per Section 238 (1)(b) of the Act 1994, the Secretary has no jurisdiction to issue such a direction and only the Village Panchayat has the power. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat. I also heard the counsel appearing for the party respondents.

4. The counsel for the party respondents submitted that the Secretary is only issuing notice on behalf of the Village Panchayat and therefore, there is no violation of the provision. This Court perused the impugned orders. A perusal of the impugned orders would clearly show that the notices are issued by the Secretary, and it is not with the concurrence of the Village Panchayat.

5. This Court in Thankamma v. Ezhumattur Grama Panchayat [ 2001 (2) KLT 596 ], observed like this:

“5. The term Secretary and Panchayat have been separately defined, and one is not synonym for another. As suggested at the bar, in a Panchayat area ramification of proceedings in such sensitive matter may be greater than in a city, and perhaps the legislature thought that the responsibility for such decision should rest in the collective body, and is not to be conferred on an individual who may not be conversant with local flavours.

6. On giving through the provisions of the statute, I have to hold that the petitioner's contentions are justified and acceptable. When a threat was spoken to arise in the Panchayat, it was imperative that a decision is to be taken thereon. Appropriate orders should be issued to the Executive authority to set right the situation. The Secretary has no independent discretion, however. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not think that Ext. P1 was validly issued and the order is hereby set aside. Since the complaint is subsisting and the order is set aside for technical reasons, I am of the view that the second respondent Panchayat will deal with the matter appropriately and expeditiously and after hearing the version of both sides, if necessary with further notice, orders as are warranted in public interest may be passed without undue delay.”

6. Again, this Court in Devadas Nayak v. Manjeshwar Grama Panchayath [2019 (4) KLT OnLine 2001] observed like this:

“7. In view of the law laid down in the decision referred to supra, exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 238 of the Act can be exercised only by the Village Panchayat and not by the Secretary of the Panchayat. In the instant case, Ext.P2 complaint made by the petitioner dated 20.12.2018 squarely falls within the purview of sub-section (1) of Section 238 of the Act. Therefore, such a request can be considered only by the Village Panchayat constituted under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of Section 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 .”

8. In the light of the above principles, it is c