Panchayats Can't Claim Expertise Over Competent Statutory Bodies And Stop Legally Permissible Entrepreneurial Projects: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that Panchayats should only wield their designated powers and not assume the role of enforcers in all public interests, particularly in areas where other competent statutory authorities hold expertise and decision-making authority.

Justice N. Nagaresh added that citizens pursuing start-ups and projects should be able to rely on clearances from these specialised bodies without additional hurdles from local self government institutions.

"When such specialised and expert statutory bodies are created, Panchayat Committees, who cannot claim expertise in those areas, cannot take a view contrary to that of other competent statutory authorities. Citizens who opt for start ups and entrepreneurships should be able to rely on the decisions and clearances given by specialised statutory bodies and go ahead with their projects. Local Self Government Institutions cannot take a view different from the views of other statutory bodies and stop or create hurdles for the entrepreneurs in going ahead with projects which are permitted under laws."

"The Panchayat institutions but can exercise only those powers conferred on and vested with them by legislature. The Panchayats cannot act as if they are protectors and enforcers of all public interests and exercise powers not vested with them."

The petition was filed by a grantee of a Letter of Intent to establish a quarrying unit in Kasaragod challenging the Grama Panchayat's denial of permission for conducting quarrying operations.

The petitioner had obtained necessary approvals and clearances from various authorities, including the Director of Mining and Geology, District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Pollution Control Board and the Explosives Licensing Authority. However, when he approached the Panchayat for the licence, the authorities dismissed his application citing that a new quarry need not be permitted in the Panchayat area. 

Advocates Philip J Vettickattu, Sajitha George and Neenu Bernath appearing for the petitioner contended that the Panchayat did not have the jurisdiction to refuse permission as per the amendment to Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It was further submitted that the reason for rejecting their application is legally unsustainable.

Advocate K. Seena appearing for the respondents opposed the petition citing objections from the public regarding the petitioner's lack of NOC from the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. They also claimed that the District Collector's response was pending and that the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

The Court found that the petitioner had obtained the necessary approvals, including a Letter of Intent and Environmental Clearance after a thorough evaluation of environmental concerns by competent authorities. 

"When a competent authority has considered the issue and decided in favour of the petitioner, the Panchayat Committee could not have taken a decision, that too without any expert study in the matter," the Court emphasised. 

Justice Nagaresh condemned certain Panchayats in the State for exceeding their powers, causing legal disputes and obstructing regular statutory procedures. It emphasized that Panchayats should function within the scope of their designated authority and responsibilities.

"It is a travesty of justice that some of the Panchayats in Kerala which are given constitutional status in view of the Three-Tyre Local Self Governance System contemplated under Articles 243 to 243-O, often exercise powers not vested in them impeding regular statutory processes and putting citizens into unwanted litigations."

The Court added that in our Constitutional scheme of governance, various statutory authorities administer and govern all domains, each with its own expertise and designated fields. When specialised statutory bodies exist, Panchayat Committees should not contradict the decisions of competent authorities. 

Observing so, the High Court set aside the decision of the Panchayat and directed the respondents to issue permission to the petitioner within one month. 

Accordingly, the petition was allowed. 

Case Title: Sinoj Thomas v. Balal Grama Pachayat & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 358

Click Here To Read/Download The Order