The petitioner has applied to the second respondent, the Secretary of the first respondent Panchayat, for licence to operate a quarry, after obtaining all other licences and permissions required for the same. The application submitted by the petitioner was placed by the second respondent before the Panchayat, and the Panchayat, as per Ext.P6 decision called for the views of the Gramasabha, as the operation of the quarry is likely to create inconvenience to the general public.
2. Ext.P6 decision of the Panchayat is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition as one without jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, the second respondent being the statutory authority to consider an application for licence under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act'), he has to decide the application himself in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. According to the petitioner, neither the Panchayat nor the Gramasabha has any role in the matter of deciding the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the licence W.P.(C) No.27512 of 2014 2 sought for by him. The petitioner relies on the decision of this Court in Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat v. Johny Roy (2013(3) KLT 1053), in support of his contention.
3. It is settled that when a statutory function is given to a particular authority, that authority has to discharge that function and it cannot be relegated to any other authority. In Dharmadom Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi v. Dharmadom Grama Panchayat (2010(2) KLT 194), this Court had held that when certain powers are conferred on the Secretary of the Panchayat, no interference can be made in regard to such statutory function by the Committee of the Panchayat. In Shanti Joseph v. Poyya Grama Panchayath (1999(1) KLT 695), this Court had held that the applications of Panchayat have to be decided by the statutory authority in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable and not based on the views expressed by the general public in the form of protest.
4. Ext.P6 indicates beyond doubt that the decision on the application for licence submitted by the petitioner was not taken by the Secretary of the Panchayat, instead, the Secretary placed the matter for consideration by the Panchayat. The Panchayat, in turn relegated the matter to the Gramasabha. Ext.P6 also indicates that a decision is proposed W.P.(C) No.27512 of 2014 3 to be taken based on the views of the general public.
5. In the light of the decisions referred to above, I am of the view that the application submitted by the petitioner for licence shall be decided by the second respondent himself and not by the Panchayat or by the Gramasabha. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application for licence submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act and the rules made thereunder. This shall be done within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that in view of the provisions contained in Section 236(3) of the Act, he is entitled to operate the quarry in respect of which the application for licence was submitted. In view of the direction issued as aforesaid, I do not propose to decide the right, if any, of the petitioner to operate the quarry, as provided for under Section 236(3) of the Act in this writ petition and the said issue is left open.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs (true copy)