Judgment :- 1. In this case, the petitioner has challenged the legality/validity of the order Annexure-H dated 4.5.2011 in case No. TPS/APPEAL/8/2010-11 passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District, the 1st respondent herein. 2. The petitioner is the President of Suntikoppa Branch of South Karnataka Salafi Movement. He had purchased 10 cents of land in Sy. No. 128/IAI-P1 comprising of a dilapidated tiled house situated at Uluguli Village, Suntikoppa Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk, under a deed of sale at Annexure-A dated 9.7.2008. He made an application to the Suntikoppa Grama Panchayat (for short ‘the Panchayat) seeking permission to hold prayer meetings and other cultural programmes in the existing old structure of the said property. The Panchayat passed a resolution in its meeting held on 10th November 2008 (Annexure-B) permitting the petitioner to use the structure as a make shift Mosque. It is further contended that the petitioner made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, Madikeri, for conversion of land for non-agricultural purposes in order to construct a Mosque thereon. The Deputy Commissioner by his order vide in NO.LC43/2009-10 dated 8.7.2009 (Annexure-C) accorded permission for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes by levying conversion fee of 8,900/- per acre. Thereafter a building plain was approved by the Panchayat Development Officer. The petitioner filed an application requesting the 3rd respondent for grant of permission to reconstruct the building. In response to the said application, the 3rd respondent granted permission as per Annexure-D dated 6.3.2011 to reconstruct the building on the said land. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kushalnagar, granted permission to use the loudspeaker as per the order at Annexure-E dated 19.1.2011. When things stood thus, the 2nd respondent filed an appeal challenging the permission at Annexure-D before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has passed the impugned order allowing the appeal reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for reconstruction of the building on the said land. The 1st respondent in his order has observed that if such an application is filed, the Panchayat should consider the same and pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law. 3. Respondents Nos.1 and 3 have filed their objections contending that in response to the application filed by the petitioner, the Panchayat Development Officer has issued the permission to construct the building. 3. Respondents Nos.1 and 3 have filed their objections contending that in response to the application filed by the petitioner, the Panchayat Development Officer has issued the permission to construct the building. The Panchayat had passed a resolution as per Annexure-R3 dated 30.10.2010 authorising the Panchayat Development Officer to grant permission to construct the building within the Panchayat limits, after verifying the site of construction. In the appeal, the 2nd respondent had made serious allegations against the petitioner. The appeal was allowed by the 1st respondent and the licence issued by the Panchayat Development Officer was set aside and the petitioner was permitted to make a fresh application to the Panchayat for construction of the building. 4. The 2nd respondent in the application seeking vacation of the interim order has contended that the Secretary of the Panchayat has not brought to the notice of the members of the Panchayat that he has granted licence dated 6.3.2011 permitting the petitioner to construct the building. Hence, he filed an appeal to the 1st respondent under section 269(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’), challenging the licence. The 1st respondent has allowed the appeal and has set aside the permission with liberty to file a fresh application to the Panchayat for grant of permission. The property in question is situated in the residential area of Suntikoppa town. Unless the plan is legally sanctioned, the petitioner cannot put up the construction on the said land. The Panchayat Development Officer has no jurisdiction to grant permission to construct a building within the Grama Panchayat area. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent under section 269(1) of the Act was not maintainable having regard to section 64(5) of the Act. The 2nd respondent has failed to state as to how he was aggrieved by the grant of licence to construct the building. The 2nd respondent could not have maintained the appeal even under section 64(5) of the Act as he was not aggrieved by the grant of permission. It is further submitted that the order impugned is not a speaking order. If the petitioner is carrying on any terrorist activity as alleged by the 2nd respondent, the law enforcing agencies have to take action in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the order impugned is not a speaking order. If the petitioner is carrying on any terrorist activity as alleged by the 2nd respondent, the law enforcing agencies have to take action in accordance with law. However, that cannot be a ground to reject the permission to construct the building in question. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that section 64(1) of the Act provides for grant of permission to erect any building, alter or add to any existing building or reconstruct any building subject to such rule as may be prescribed. The Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Grama Panchayats Control over Erection of Buildings Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules’) have been made under the said provision regulating control over the erection of the buildings. According to the said provision, any person intending to erect building has to apply to writing to the Panchayat for permission to erect the building under Rule 3. The Panchayat has to call for the objection to the application under Rule 4. Rule 5 provides for grant of permission for erection of the building. In the present case, the permission at Annexure-D has been granted by the Panchayat Development Officer which is without authority of law. The Grama Panchayat alone is competent to grant permission to erect the building. There is no provision for delegation of power of the Grama Panchayat to the Panchayat Development Officer for granting of permission to erect the buildings. The 2nd respondent being a member of the Panchayat and a resident of the area has been opposing the grant of permission to the petitioner to construct the building in question as it may lead to law and order problem in the area. That is why he has filed an appeal under section 269(1) of the Act. 7. Learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 has sought to justify the impugned order. 8. From the materials on record, it is clear that the Suntikoppa Branch of the South Karnataka Salafi Movement, represented by its President P.K. Mohammed Hanif purchased 10 cents of land at Sy. No. 128/1A1-P1 comprising of a dilapidated tiled house at Uluguli Village, Suntikoppa Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk under a deed of sale at Annexure-A dated 9.7.2008 from Musalmanara D.A. Rasheed Saheb. No. 128/1A1-P1 comprising of a dilapidated tiled house at Uluguli Village, Suntikoppa Hobli, Somwarpet Taluk under a deed of sale at Annexure-A dated 9.7.2008 from Musalmanara D.A. Rasheed Saheb. The petitioner made an application requesting the Panchayat for grant of permission to use the old structure as a make shift Mosque for holding prayers and also to conduct other cultural programmes and to open a library. The Panchayat passed a resolution as per Annexure-B dated 10.11.2008 granting permissing to the petitioner to use the existing structure to hold prayer meetings and to conduct other cultural programmes and also to open a library. The Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, passed an order of conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose as per his order at Annexure-C dated 8.7.2009. The Panchayat had passed a resolution as per Annexure-R3 dated 30.10.2009 authorizing the Panchayat Development Officer to grant permission to construct buildings within the Panchayat area, after making spot inspection of the sites. On the basis of the said resolution, the said officer appears to have granted permission as per Annexure-D dated 6.3.2011 to construct the building on the land in question subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. The Circle Inspector of Police, Kushalnagar, Kodagu District granted licence as per Annexure-E dated 19.1.2011 for use of the loudspeaker in the Mosque. 9. Sri M.A. Usman, the 2nd respondent herein, is the member of the Grama Panchayat. He filed an appeal, as per Annexure-F, before the 1st respondent, challenging the grant of permission by the Panchayat Development Officer at Annexure-D dated 6.3.2011. The 1st respondent granted interim order at Annexure-G dated 16.3.2011 staying the operation of the permission at Annexure-D. As noticed above, the 1st respondent by his order at Annexure-H has allowed the appeal with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the Grama Panchayat for grant of permission to build to build a Mosque on the land in question. 10. Having regard to the contentions urged, the 1st question for consideration is whether the Panchayat Development Officer is competent to grant permission as per Annexure-D dated 6.3.2011 to the petitioner to put up construction on the land in question. 10. Having regard to the contentions urged, the 1st question for consideration is whether the Panchayat Development Officer is competent to grant permission as per Annexure-D dated 6.3.2011 to the petitioner to put up construction on the land in question. Section 64(1) of the Act provides for erection of the building which is as under: SEC.64: Regulation of the erection of the buildings: (1) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, no person shall erect any building or alter or add to any existing building or reconstruct any building without the written permission of the Grama Panchayat. The permission may be granted on payment of such fees as may be specified by bye-laws.” Sub-section (15) of Section 2 provides for meaning of Grama Panchayat, which reads as under: “Grama Panchayat means the Grama Panchayat established under this Act.” Section 5 of the Act provides for constitution of Grama panchayat. It states that the Grama Panchayat shall consist of such number of elected members as mau be notified from time to time by the State Election Commission at the rate of one member for every four hundred population or part thereof of the panchayat area. The other sub-sections of Section 5 are not relevant for the purpose of this case. Incorporation of the Grama Panchayat is provided under Section 6 of the Act, which is as under: Sec.6: Incorporation of Grama Panchayat. Every Grama Panchayat shall be a body corporate by the name of the “….. Grama panchayat” and shall have perpetual succession and a common seal, and subject to such restrictions as are imposed by or under this Act or any other enactment, shall be vested with the capacity of suing or being in its corporate name, of acquiring, holding and transferring property, moveable or immoveable, whether without or within the limits of the area over which it has authority, of entering into contracts and of doing all things necessary, proper or expedient for the purposes for which it is constituted.” 11. The Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Grama Panchayats Control over Erection of Buildings) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules) has been made for providing control over erection of the building. The relevant rules are Rules-3 to 5, which are as under. “3. The Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Grama Panchayats Control over Erection of Buildings) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules) has been made for providing control over erection of the building. The relevant rules are Rules-3 to 5, which are as under. “3. Application to erect a building.- (1) Any person intending to erect a building shall, apply in writing to the Grama Panchayat for permission to erect the building and shall furnish, along with the application.- (A) in case of erection of a new building.- (i) a site plan, in duplicate, of the land on which he intends to erect the building, showing the position of the building to be erected in relation to the land: Provided that, if the building to be erected less than five thousands rupees in value, it shall be sufficient if the site plan shows the size of the proposed budding and its position in relation to the land. (ii) the plan of the building to be erected such plan being in duplicate and showing.- (a) the plan of the ground floor and of each other floor, if any, with sections and elevations; (b) the levels of the foundation with reference to the level of the center of the adjacent roads or streets. (c) depth and thickness of foundations: (d) the dimensions and Structure of roof: Provided that if the building to be erected is of less than five thousand rupees in value it shall be sufficient to show levels at which the foundation of the lowest floor is proposed to be laid: (B) in case of alteration or addition to any existing building or reconstruction of a building a copy of the attested previous sanctioned plan; Provided that if the applicant for any reasons sworn to in an affidavit, cannot produce the previous sanctioned plan of the existing building, then in such cases the plan of the existing Building along- with site plan shall be furnished and it shall be examined in the light of the existing rules and bye-laws relating to erection of building. (2) The Grama Panchayat may on receipt of an application under sub-rule (1), require the applicant in writing to furnish such other particulars as may be necessary in the circumstances of the case, and on such requisition, the applicant shall furnish such particulars unless there are reasonable grounds for not furnishing such particulars. 4. (2) The Grama Panchayat may on receipt of an application under sub-rule (1), require the applicant in writing to furnish such other particulars as may be necessary in the circumstances of the case, and on such requisition, the applicant shall furnish such particulars unless there are reasonable grounds for not furnishing such particulars. 4. Calling for objections, etc.- (1) The Grama Panchayat may, on receipt of an application under Rule 3, give public notice by affixing such notice on the notice board of the office of the Grama panchayat calling or objections thereto, within a period not exceeding seven days from the date of such notice, as may be specified therein. (2) If any objections are received within the time specified regarding the proposed erection of the building the Grama Panchayat shall consider such objections before granting shall consider such objections before granting or refusing the permission. 5. Grant of permission.- If the Grama Panchayat is satisfied that the proposed erection of the building is in accordance with the provisions of these rules and the bye-laws made under the Act, it shall grant the permission applied for, subject to payment of the requisite fee.- 12. It is settled that if a statute gives power to the Government to make Rules to carry out the purpose of the Act, the Rules so framed have the force of the statute and are deemed to be incorporated as a part of the statute (See Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. And others, etc., vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others, etc.- AIR 1970 SC 245 ). 13. The above Rules make it clear that any person intending to erect a building has to seek permission by making an application to the Panchayat. He has to furnish the plan along with the application under Rule 3. Sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 4 state that the Panchayat on receipt of an application under Rule 3, give public notice by affixing such notice on the notice board of the office of the Panchayat calling for objections thereto, within a period not exceeding seven days from the date of such notice, as may be specified therein. If the objections are raised within the time specified, the Panchayat has to consider the objections before granting or refusing to grant the permission. If the objections are raised within the time specified, the Panchayat has to consider the objections before granting or refusing to grant the permission. The Panchayat shall grant permission if it is satisfied that the proposed construction is in accordance with the Rules and the Bye-laws made under the Act. 14. As stated above, the Grama Panchayat is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal. Section 64(1) of the Act clearly states that subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the Grama Panchayat is authorized to grant permission to erect any building or alter or add to any existing building or reconstruct any building within the area. The expression ‘subject to’ conveys the idea of a provision of yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made. Rules have been framed for control over erection of the buildings. Giving a public notice under Rule3 is one of the pre-requisites for grant or permission. If any objections are received in response to the public notice, the same has to be considered before granting or refusing permission. The grant of permission to erect the building under section 64(1) is subject to the procedure prescribed in Rules-3 to 5. 15. In the present case, the Panchayat Development Officer appears to have granted permission as per Annexure-D to construct the building on the basis of the power delegated by the Panchayat in its resolution dated 30.10.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not pointed out any statutory provision in the Act authorizing the Grama Panchayat to delegate its power of granting permission to erect the buildings to the Panchayat Development Officer. Therefore, question of granting permission to erect the building by the Panchayat Development officer is without authority of law. The Grama Panchayat alone is authorized to grant permission to erect the buildings within the Panchayat area. The resolution of the Panchayat dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure-R3) is invalid. Even otherwise, the grant of permission as per Annexure-D is illegal for non-compliance of Rules-3 and 5. Had the Panchayat issued public notice under Rule-3, the 2nd respondent or any other persons opposing the construction would have flied objections. The resolution of the Panchayat dated 30.10.2010 (Annexure-R3) is invalid. Even otherwise, the grant of permission as per Annexure-D is illegal for non-compliance of Rules-3 and 5. Had the Panchayat issued public notice under Rule-3, the 2nd respondent or any other persons opposing the construction would have flied objections. In fast, several persons have sent a representation as per Annexure-R1 dated 2.3.2011 to the elected representatives, the Hon’ble Minister for Home Affairs and other authorities including the Panchayat opposing construction of the building in question. Therefore, the permission granted by the Panchayat Development Officer as per Annexure-D dated 6.3.2011 permitting the petitioner to construct the building on the land in question is illegal and without jurisdiction. Rule of law is the sole and backbone of democratic life and it has got to be followed by all institutions. Law is the solemn expression of legislative will. Stated broadly, a law generally is a body of rules which have been laid down for determining legal rights and legal obligations recognized by Courts. When the law requires an action to be taken in a particular manner, the same has to be taken in the same manner. In Ram Chandra Keshav Adke (Dead) vs. Govind Joti, Chavare and Others – AIR 1975 SC 915 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where a power is given to do certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. The Apex Court in Babu Verghese and Others vs Bar Council of Kerala and Others – 1999 (3) SCC 422 has held that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute the act must be done in that manner. It has been held thus: “It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor V. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emeroro, who stated as under. Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor V. Taylor which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad Vs. King Emeroro, who stated as under. Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Sing vs. State of V.P. and again in Deep Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in State of UP. And Signhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case has again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognized as a salutary principle of administrative law.” 16. That brings me to the second question as to whether the 2nd respondent is entitled to maintain the appeal before the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent has challenged the grant of permission by the Panchayat Development the grant of permission by the Panchayat Development Officer at Annexure-D by filing an appeal before the 1st respondent. The appeal in legal parlance is held to mean the removal of a cause from an inferior or subordinate to a superior tribunal/forum in order to test and scrutinize the correctness of the impugned decision. It amounts in essence and pith to a complaint to a higher forum that the decision of the subordinate tribunal is erroneous and therefore liable to be rectified or set right. The 2nd respondent has filed the appeal under section 269(1) of the Act which is as under: Sec.269(1): Any person aggrieved by any original order of the Grama Panchayat under this Act, unless appeal is provided elsewhere in this Act, may within thirty days from the date of such order appeal to the Executive Officer.” 17. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal under Section 269(1) of the Act is maintainable if it is filed by a person aggrieved by any original order of the Grama Panchayat under the Act provided there is no provision elsewhere in the Act to file the appeal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal under Section 269(1) of the Act is maintainable if it is filed by a person aggrieved by any original order of the Grama Panchayat under the Act provided there is no provision elsewhere in the Act to file the appeal. He draws my attention to sub section (5) of Section 64 of the Act and submits that an appeal against the grant of permission under Sub-section (1) of section 64 has to be filed only under the said provisions. Sub section (5) of Section 64 of the Act is as under: “SEC.64(5): An appeal shall lie to the Executive Officer from any order or direction or notice of the Grama Panchayat under Sub section (1), (2) or (3) and his decision on such appeal shall be final. 18. There is a slight different between the language contained in Section 269(1) and Section 64(5) of the Act. In 0rder to file an appeal under Section 269(1) of the Act, the appellant should be a ‘person aggrieved’ by any original order of the Grama Panchayat under the Act and secondly, the Act should not have provided anywhere else for filing of an appeal. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the 2nd respondent ought have filed an appeal under section 64(5) of the Act because the said provision the filing of an appeal challenging the order passed under Subsections (1), (2) or (3) of Section 64 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 64 of the Act does not contain the expression ‘person aggrieved’. 19. The 2nd respondent is a member of the Panchayat. He has been opposing the grant of permission to the petitioner to construct the Mosque on the land in question. It is his case that the matter was not placed before the Panchayat before granting permission as required under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule-4. I have already held that the delegation of power to the Panchayat Development Officer for grant of permission to erect the buildings within the Panchayat area is illegal and without jurisdiction. Though Subsection (5) of Section 64 of the Act does not contain the expression ‘person aggrieved’, the said expression has to be read into the said section. I have already held that the delegation of power to the Panchayat Development Officer for grant of permission to erect the buildings within the Panchayat area is illegal and without jurisdiction. Though Subsection (5) of Section 64 of the Act does not contain the expression ‘person aggrieved’, the said expression has to be read into the said section. As stated above, an appeal means removal of a cause from an inferior or subordinate to a superior tribunal/forum in order to test and scrutinise the correctness of the impugned decision. It is only a ‘person aggrieved’ who can challenge the grant of permission to erect the building under Sub-section (5) of Section 64 of the Act. ‘Aggrieved person’ means a person who has suffered a legal grievance. In Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. M.V.Dabholkar – AIR 1975 SC 2092 , a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has considered the meaning of the expression ‘aggrieved person’, which is as under: “The meaning of the words “a person aggrieved” may vary according to the context of the statute. One of the meanings is that a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision if that decision is materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order to make one ‘a person aggrieved”. Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on him. The meaning of the words “a person aggrieved” is sometimes given a restricted meaning in certain statutes, which provide remedies for the protection of private legal rights. The restricted meaning requires denial or deprivation of legal rights. A more liberal approach is required in the background of statutes which do not deal with property rights but deal with professional conduct or morality.” 20 In my opinion, the 2nd respondent is a ‘person aggrieved’ in so far as grant of permission at Annexure-D in favour of the petitioner is concerned. Though the 2nd respondent has invoked Section 269(1) of the Act, the appeal is referable to Section 64 (5) of the Act. It is well established that non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision of law does not invalidate an act in the event it is found that a power therefore existed. Though the 2nd respondent has invoked Section 269(1) of the Act, the appeal is referable to Section 64 (5) of the Act. It is well established that non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of a provision of law does not invalidate an act in the event it is found that a power therefore existed. Quoting a wrong provision in the appeal does not take away the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to decide the appeal as long as the power could be traced to some other provision in the Act. (See M.T. Khan and others Vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh and others – 2004 (2) SCC 207). One of the basic principles of law is that there is no wrong without a remedy. When there is a right, there is a forum for its enforcement. The 2nd respondent comes within the expression ‘person aggrieved and he has filed an appeal before the 1st respondent for redressal of his grievance. Therefore, the appeal is maintainable. 21. The last question for consideration is whether this Court should exercise its discretionary power to interfere with the order impugned. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order at Annexure-H is not a speaking order. The desirability of passing a speaking order cannot be lightly ignored by any judicial or quasi-judicial authority more so when the same is amenable to further challenge. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that the 1st respondent has stated the facts of the case and assigned the reasons in brief for allowing the appeal. He has also reserved liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the Panchayat for grant of permission. The Grama Panchayat is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. However, it needs to be emphasized here that the 1st respondent has to assign cogent reasons while arriving at the decision because he functions as a quasi-judicial authority when he decides the appeal. Even if it is assume that the reasons assigned by the 1st respondent are insufficient, that by itself is not a ground for interference of the order in exercise of the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has to exercise the discretionary power with great caution only in furtherance of public interest and not making out of a legal point. This Court has to exercise the discretionary power with great caution only in furtherance of public interest and not making out of a legal point. I have already held that the permission granted at Annexure-D is invalid and without jurisdiction. If the appellate order at Annexure-H is set aside, it has the effect of restoration of the illegal permission granted as per Annexure-D. Therefore, this Court should not exercise its extra ordinary discretionary power to quash the same. (See Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Govt of A.P., & Others – AIR 1966 S 828 and Maharaj Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdev Vs. State of Bihar – AIR 1999 SC 3609 ). Assuming that the order at Annexure-H is quashed on the ground that it is not a speaking order, the matter may have to be remitted to the 1st respondent for fresh disposal, which does not serve any purpose as I have already held that the permission granted at Annexure-D for construction of the building is illegal. In the circumstances, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 22. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a fresh application for grant of permission for construction of the building on the land in question before the competent authority. If such an application if filed, the said authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. 23. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition as above. Misc. W. No.6192/2011 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.