IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5105 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.ABRAHAM, RETIRED HEAD MASTER, ORAVACKAL HOUSE, AMAYANNOR P.O., AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN.686025. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AYARKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O. AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION TRIVANDRUM. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5105 of 2010 (K) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that in respect of a commercial building owned by himself, his brother and nephews, he wanted to change the roof of the building by replacing it with Aluminium tile profile sheet. When he commenced work, he was issued a notice intimating that the work was illegal in the absence of a licence issued by the respondent Grama Panchayat. Thereupon, the petitioner submits that he made Ext.P3 application for licence. On receipt of the licence application, it is alleged that the Secretary of the 1st respondent informed him that since notice was issued to him on the directions of the Secretary to Government, in the absence of any order from the Secretary to Government, the 1st respondent is not in a position to pass orders on Ext.P3. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the 1st respondent to pass orders on the licence application made by the petitioner. WP(C) No.5105/2010 -2- 2. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act shows that when an application is made to the Secretary of the Panchayat for issue of a licence, it is for that authority to exercise its discretion and pass orders thereon, which has to be untrammelled by any directions issued by any superior authority. Therefore, even if it is true that the notice issued to the petitioner was as per the directions of the Secretary to Government, that does not mean that the 1st respondent will cease to be the statutory authority to interfere with this matter. If as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P3 application has been received and is pending, the statute requires the 1st respondent to pass orders thereon. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg