The petitioner, Managing Partner of an ice plant has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P10. The main ground of attack against the impugned order is that the same has been passed by the Panchayat Committee. As per the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, it is the second respondent who is the competent authority to consider an application for licence. The power of the licencing authority has been usurped by the first respondent, according to the counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner's application was one for the issue of a building permit submitted under Section 235F of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act' for short). The application as per the said provision has to be submitted to the second respondent. The permission has to be granted by the second respondent as per section 235J of the Act.
W.P.(C) No.26682 of 2013-I -:2:-
Therefore, it is not the Panchayat Committee that has been empowered by the provisions of the Act to consider an application for building permit. In the present case, Exhibit P10 has been issued by the Panchayat Committee. The authority that has issued Exhibit P10 having had no authority to do so, Exhibit P10 is unsustainable.
In view of the above, without entering into the merits of the other contentions raised in this writ petition, Exhibit P10 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj