2025:KER:23506 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WA NO. 396 OF 2025 THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2025 IN WP(C) NO.32073 OF 2024 APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION: 1 THE SECRETARY, KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARUKUTTY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683576 2 KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARUKUTTY P.O, ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 683576 BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN SRI.RANJIT BABU SRI.DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.SANAL C.S SRI.VISHAK K.V. SMT.ANU T.H. SRI.RENJITH K.R. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE WA No.396 of 2025 2 2025:KER:23506 RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION: DEEPAK CHEEROTHY, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. JOVY C.V,CHEEROTHY HOUSE, MAIN ROAD, CHALAKUDY, PIN - 680307 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA No.396 of 2025 3 2025:KER:23506 JUDGMENT Dated this the 19th day of March, 2025 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. In this Appeal, the Village Panchayat challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge interfering with the resolution passed by the Village Panchayat cancelling a permission granted under Section 233 and 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'). The learned Single Judge found that absolutely no reasons had been mentioned for cancellation of the permission granted by the Village Panchayat Committee under Section 233 of the Act as well as by the Panchayat Secretary under Section 232 of the Act. 2. The Writ Petitioner, who is the respondent herein, proposed to establish a quarry within the Panchayat. He approached the Panchayat seeking permission for construction of factories and installation of machineries WA No.396 of 2025 4 2025:KER:23506 under Section 233 of the Act. Section 233 of the Act mandates that no person shall, without the permission of the Village Panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission shall construct or establish any factory, workshop or erect machineries, etc. It delineates a certain procedure for granting permission. It is on being satisfied with procedures referred to therein; permission will have to be granted. In this case, permission was granted to the respondent. Based on this permission, the Secretary also issued D & O licence under Section 232 of the Act. Thereafter, the Panchayat received complaints from local residents and some of the representatives of the local body. Acting on these complaints, the Panchayat Committee through a resolution dated 17.08.2024 decided to cancel the permission granted. This has resulted in a challenge. 3. According to the Panchayat, under Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat meeting) WA No.396 of 2025 5 2025:KER:23506 Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules'), the Panchayat is vested with the power to cancel or modify the resolution. Therefore, there is no restriction under the law for the Village Panchayat to revoke permission granted under Section 233 of the Act. The question is whether the Panchayat has the power to cancel a permission granted under Section 233 by invoking Rule 11 of the Rules . 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, Section 233 of the Act delineates its own procedure to arrive at a conclusion similar to any quasi judicial body. Once a decision is taken, it can be cancelled or reviewed only on a finding that there was a material suppression of facts or fraud committed on the Panchayat Authority. Permission is granted by way of an order, based on satisfaction with the reports required to be produced before the Village Panchayat as referred to under Section 233 of the Act. There is no provision under Section 233 of the Act granting the power to review or cancel an order WA No.396 of 2025 6 2025:KER:23506 issued under it. Therefore, such power can be exercised only on limited grounds, like fraud or suppression of material facts leading to issuance of the order. Rule 11 has nothing to do with any decision taken or order issued under Section 233 of the Act. Rule 11 is only a procedural Rule governing Panchayat meetings and does not by itself create any substantive right or power to cancel an order or permission granted under Section 233 of the Act. A substantial right is conferred through a definite procedure while exercising a power of quasi judicial nature, and it cannot be interfered with reference to a power given to convene a meeting and modify the earlier decisions taken through a resolution. The Rules only refers to the procedure for meetings and it does not enable a Panchayat to review an order issued or permission granted under Section 233 of the Act. Therefore, the cancellation of permission granted under Section 233 of the Act is without any power. WA No.396 of 2025 7 2025:KER:23506 The Secretary also cancelled the licence issued under Section 232 of the Act on the basis of the cancellation of permission granted by the Village Panchayat under Section 233 of the Act. This being a consequent act and in the light of the fact that the decision to cancel the permission or order issued under Section 233 of the Act is unsustainable, this decision of the Secretary to cancel the licence is also not sustainable. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/- P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE MJL WA No.396 of 2025 8 2025:KER:23506 APPENDIX OF WA No.396 of 2025 RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER FOR LICENSE FOR CONSTRUCTION, ESTABLISHMENT OR INSTALLATION FACTORY, WORKSHOP OR WORKPLACE DATED 12.12.2023