The Secretary must refer local authority decisions for governmental review under specified statutory provisions.

We have heard Mr. M.S. Shiraz Abdulla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. T. Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board and Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

2. The divergence of opinion between the Grama Panchayat and the Secretary has led to the filing of this writ petition. The Grama Panchayat was of the view that the plywood factory ought not to be permitted to come up in the area, which, according to the writ petitioner, is an extensive paddy field. On the other hand, the Secretary was of the view that the 4^th respondent, having obtained all the requisite permissions, is entitled to establish the plywood factory. However, the Secretary has not made any reference to the Government, for which reason no opportunity has arisen for the Government to exercise its power under Section 191 (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader for the State submitted that, in the absence of any reference being made by the Secretary under Rule 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure to be adopted on Illegal Resolutions) Rules , 2003, the Government cannot refer the matter to the Tribunal. However, the Government may exercise its power under Section 191 , provided a petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the said decision.

4. We find the said submission to be fair. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the 1^st respondent to treat this writ petition as a petition under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994, and to decide the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all stakeholders, including the private respondents, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order by either of the parties. The said petition shall be disposed of by a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to the petitioners within one week from the date of passing of such order.

5. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. In view of the aforesaid direction, we do not consider it necessary to serve notice on respondent No.4, as this order does not affect his rights, particularly in view of the Government’s power to consider a petition received from a citizen for cancellation or suspension of a resolution passed by a local authority.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-