Statutory remedies must be exhausted before seeking relief through a writ petition, ensuring adherence to legal procedures.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 Resolution of the 1st respondent Panchayat by which an application for installation permit submitted by him has been rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that the Panchayat is not the competent authority to consider the issue. The authority to grant licence is the Secretary of the Panchayat. It is also contended that the petitioner was initially permitted to construct the building. Thereafter to refuse the installation permit is absolutely unjustified. It is therefore contended that Ext.P6 is liable to be set aside.

2. I notice that the petitioner has a statutory remedy for challenging Ext.P6 provided by Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act ,1994 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act' for short). Admittedly, the petitioner has not exhausted the said alternative remedy. Therefore, I am not satisfied that this writ petition should be entertained.

3. Though the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Kadaplamnattom Grama Panchayat v. Johny Raj [ 2013 (3) KLT 1053 ] to contend that the statutory authority competent to consider the application for installation permit is the Secretary. However, the said decision has not laid down any proposition that the petitioner is entitled to by pass his statutory remedy and to challenge the order passed by the Panchayat Committee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed but, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue his remedy under Section 276 of the Act. If the petitioner prefers an appeal against Ext.P6 within a period of ten days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of, on the merits.