Judgment : Shaffique, J. 1. The appellant in W.A.No.250/2012 is the Kadaplamatom Grama Panchayat. It challenges the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No.16033 of 2011, directing the Secretary of the Panchayat to reconsider an application filed by the respondent herein for license under the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of License to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules 1996, (hereinafter referred as the D&O Rules) and to pass orders on the application for license to operate a quarry, without reference to the resolution passed by the Panchayat. 2. The respondent herein had filed the writ petition challenging Exhibits P7 and P8. Exhibit P7 is an intimation issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat on 3.6.2011 intimating the respondent that the application of the petitioner for the license to conduct quarrying operation in survey number 294/4 in Ward No. IX was rejected on account of decision taken by the Grama Panchayat in their meeting held on 30.4.2011. Exhibit P8 is the minutes of the meeting referred by the Secretary in Exhibit P7 intimation. As per Exhibit P8 resolution it is seen that the Panchayat Committee has considered the complaints of the people in the locality in respect of the grant of license for new quarries and it was resolved not to grant license to new quarries as it would affect the health of the people in the locality, it will affect the agricultural operations in the locality and it would also affect the water source in the neighbourhood. 3. On the basis of the rival contentions the learned single Judge found that on a perusal of Exhibits P1 to P6 would show that the respondent has complied with all the statutory requirements for the issue of license by the Panchayat. It is also found that when the Secretary of the Panchayat is the statutory authority to issue licenses, Exhibits P7 and P8 would show that the Secretary has not applied his mind in the matter relating to the grant of license. According to the learned single Judge the Secretary has only acted upon the decision of the Panchayat Committee which is bad in law. The learned single Judge also found that as per the provisions of the D&O Rules the Secretary alone is competent to consider the application for grant of license. According to the learned single Judge the Secretary has only acted upon the decision of the Panchayat Committee which is bad in law. The learned single Judge also found that as per the provisions of the D&O Rules the Secretary alone is competent to consider the application for grant of license. The learned single Judge also relied upon the judgment in Dharmadom Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi v Dharmadom Grama Panchayat (2010 [2] KLT 194) for the proposition that when certain powers are conferred on the Secretary of the Panchayat, no interference can be made in regard to such statutory functions either by the President or Chairman or Member of the Panchayat or the Committee as the case may be, especially in the light of section 185B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred as the Act). Reference is also made to the judgment in Santhi Joseph v Poyya Grama Panchayat (1999 [1] KLT 695) for the proposition that the application for license has to be decided on its merits and not on mere protest from the residents of the locality. The learned single Judge also took note of the affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Panchayat, which states that licenses were issued from 2008 to 2012. A license was issued to one Kurian Immanuel in the year 2011-2012 and on 1.3.2011 quarrying license was issued to another person. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that they filed a review petition as R.P. No. 10 of 2011 requesting the court to modify the judgment to the extent of permitting them to take action under section 233 of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. But the said review petition was dismissed on the ground that the same contentions were urged before the court during the hearing of the writ petition and since the same was considered there was no necessity to consider the review petition. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the Secretary is only the Executive Officer of the Panchayat and whether the license is to be granted or refused under section 233 of the Act is purely within the discretion of the Village Panchayat. Reference is made to section 232 and 233 of the Act. Further reference is made to the D&O Rules. Reference is made to section 232 and 233 of the Act. Further reference is made to the D&O Rules. It is inter alia contended by the appellant that the learned single Judge could not have relied upon the judgments cited which was not applicable to the facts of the case. 5. W.A.No.1200 of 2012 is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12237 of 2012 challenging the dismissal of the said writ petition at the admission stage itself leaving open the right of the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of filing appeal against Exhibit P7 order of the Secretary, rejecting an application submitted by the petitioner for license under section 232 of the Act. The request of the petitioner before the Panchayat was to commence operation of a quarry in the property having an extent of 21.52 Ares in resurvey number 342/2 of Pallikkal village. The respondent herein is the Pallikal Grama Panchayat. Exhibit P7 is the impugned order issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat on 19.1.2012, intimating the appellant that license to conduct quarry in the property cannot be granted on account of objections from the people in the locality and the decision taken by the committee after an inquiry in that regard. According to the petitioner the decision under D&O Rules is to be taken by the President of the Panchayat and not by the Panchayat Committee or the Secretary. 6. Common questions arise for consideration in these writ appeals and hence decided together. The short question involved is as to who is the competent authority under the Act and D&O Rules to consider the application and issue a license in the matter relating to the grant of license for running an establishment coming under the D&O Rules. 7. In W.A.No.1200/2012 the first question for consideration is whether, the Panchayat Committee can take a decision not to grant license for quarrying operations in the Panchayat. By Exhibit P8, on the basis of complaints from the people in the locality complaining of various problems faced by them, by way of health problems, safety, scarcity of water etc. the Panchayat decided not to issue any more quarrying licenses. 8. Section 233 of the Act reads as under: “233. By Exhibit P8, on the basis of complaints from the people in the locality complaining of various problems faced by them, by way of health problems, safety, scarcity of water etc. the Panchayat decided not to issue any more quarrying licenses. 8. Section 233 of the Act reads as under: “233. Permission for the construction of factories and the installation of machinery.- (1) No person shall, without the permission of the Village Panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission,- (a) construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power; or (b) install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted by the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. (2) An application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be submitted to the Village Panchayat addressed to the Secretary in such form and with such details as prescribed. (3) The secretary shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the application, enquire and report to the Village Panchayat as to whether the establishment of the factory, workshop or workplace or other installation of machinery or manufacturing plant for which permission is applied for is objectionable by reason of density of population in the neighbourhood and the possibility to cause nuisance or pollution and the Village Panchayat after having considered the application and the reports of the Secretary, and of such other authorities as specified in sub-section (4) may as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within sixty days,- (a) grant the permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions an it thinks fit to impose; or (b) refuse the permission for the reasons to be recorded. (4) Before granting or refusing permission under sub-section 3), the Village Panchayat, shall obtain and consider. (a) a report of the Inspector of Factories Act appointed under the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948) or of an officer of the Industries Department not below the rank of an Industries Extension Officer having jurisdiction over the area regarding the adequacy of ventilation, light etc. (a) a report of the Inspector of Factories Act appointed under the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948) or of an officer of the Industries Department not below the rank of an Industries Extension Officer having jurisdiction over the area regarding the adequacy of ventilation, light etc. and sufficiency of the height and size of the rooms and doors and the suitability of exists to be used in case of fire in the plan of Factories, workshop, workplace or premises if they came within the purview of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948) and such other matters as may be prescribed: (b) a report of the District Medical Officer regarding the possibility of nuisance or pollution if the connected load of the machinery proposed to be installed exceeds 25 HP or if the nature of the machinery and installation are such that it may cause nuisance or pollution; and (c) a report of the Divisional Fire Officer or any other officer authorised by him regarding the adequacy of fire prevention and fire fighting measures planned if the proposed industry involves the use of high tension power or inflammable or explosive materials: Provided that, no report under clause (b) shall be called for in respect of any industry if the applicant produces a declaration recommended by an officer of the Industries Department authorised in this behalf or by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the effect that such industry would not cause pollution. (5) The grant of permission under this section.- (a) Shall be subject to the conditions to be observed in respect of the replacement of machinery the levy of fees and to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed; (b) Shall not be deemed as exempted from observing the provisions contained in section 235(F) and 235 (H) or 235(P) and 235(Q).” It is not in dispute that if a person intends to construct or establish any factory workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ any form of power or they intent to install any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as stated above an application is to be submitted to the Village Panchayat addressed to the Secretary. As per subsection [3] of section 233, on receiving such application the Secretary shall make an enquiry and give a report to the Village Panchayat, as to whether grant of such permission is objectionable by reason of density of population in the neighborhood or the possibility to cause nuisance or pollution and it is for the Village Panchayat after considering the application and the reports of the Secretary or such authorities as specified under subsection [4] of section 233 either grant the permission or refuse the permission. Subsection [4] further provides that before granting or refusing permission the Village Panchayat shall obtain and consider various reports as specified under clauses [a], [b] and [c], which includes a report from the Inspector of factories, a report of the District Medical Officer and a report from the Divisional Fire Officer. The proviso further indicates that if the applicant produces a declaration recommended by an officer of the Industries Department authorized in that behalf or by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the effect that such industry would not cause pollution, a report from District Medical Officer can be dispensed. 9. Therefore a decision as to whether permission is to be granted for constructing or establishing any such quarry which apparently is a workplace in which mechanical power or electrical power is used, definitely requires permission from the Village Panchayat. The authority of the Secretary is only to obtain the reports as contemplated under the provisions and place the same before the Village Panchayat. 10. Section 232(1) of the Act reads as under: “232. Purpose for which places may not be used without a licence. (1) The Village Panchayat may notify that no place in the Panchayat area shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the rules made in this behalf being purposes which in the opinion of Government, are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property, without a licence issued by the Secretary and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence” Section 232 of the Act indicates that no place in the Panchayat shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the D&O Rules without a license issued by the Secretary and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such license. This provision applies only if there is a notification by the Panchayat that no place in the Panchayat shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the D&O Rules. 11. Now coming to the D&O Rules, rule 3 indicates that all work or activity specified in the first schedule to the rules require permission under the rules. Some of the Rules are extracted hereunder for easy reference: “5. Application for licence.- The owner or occupier of every place used for the purposes specified in Schedule I shall, within thirty days of the publication of the notification, submit to the Secretary, application for licence for the use of such place for such purpose. 6. In the case of application, decision has to be taken by the President.-The President may by order in writing and subject to such restrictions and regulations as he thinks fit, issue such licence or in public interest refuse to issue the same. In the case of refusal of licence the reasons for such refusal shall be mentioned in such order.” xxxxx “8. Period of licence .- The period of every licence issued under Rule 6, will expire at the end of the year unless, for special reasons, the President considers that it should expire at an earlier date, when it shall expire at such earlier date as may be specified therein. Provided that the period of licence in respect of factory, industrial establishment etc. shall be fixed as five years and in such cases five times of the fee for licence per annum fixed by the Panchayat under Schedule III and IV shall be realised in advance.” XXXX “11. Cumulative licence.- The President shall, where the same owner uses the same place for more than one purpose enumerated in Schedule 1, issue one cumulative licence for all such purposes. The Panchayat shall, on the basis of the average daily trade, fix in lump the fee for the cumulative licence in Schedule II.” xxxx “25. Cumulative licence.- The President shall, where the same owner uses the same place for more than one purpose enumerated in Schedule 1, issue one cumulative licence for all such purposes. The Panchayat shall, on the basis of the average daily trade, fix in lump the fee for the cumulative licence in Schedule II.” xxxx “25. Cancellation of Licence.- The President may, if he is convinced that any of the conditions of the licence has been violated or if a Court of Law has convicted the licencee under the protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (Central Act 22 of 1955) and that the offence has been committed in respect of any matter connected with the licence, cancel the licence issued.” Rule 5 imposes an obligation on the owner or occupier of any place used for the purpose specified in schedule I, to submit application to the Secretary for license for the use of such place for such purpose. Rule 6 authorises the President to issue such license or refuse the same. Rule 7 relates to the fee for every license issued by the President. Rule 8 relates to the period of license which usually expires at the end of the year, unless the President considers that it should expire on an earlier date. However in the case of factories or other industrial establishments the period of license shall be fixed as five years. Rule 11 authorises the President to issue a cumulative license. Rule 12 relates to an application to be submitted for constructing or establishing any factory workshop or workplace as specified under section 233 of the Act. The rule also provides that the application is to be submitted to the Village Panchayat for permission. As per sub rule (3) it is for the Village Panchayat to either grant permission or refuse the same on account of reasons to be stated and one of the reasons is on account of the establishment being objectionable by reason of high density of population in the area and that it is likely to cause nuisance. Clause (c) of sub rule (3) indicates that where an application is not disposed within the period specified in sub rule (3) the applicant shall be deemed to have a license. Clause (c) of sub rule (3) indicates that where an application is not disposed within the period specified in sub rule (3) the applicant shall be deemed to have a license. Rule 12 [3] [d] further provides that in case of factories or industrial establishments with machinery having a capacity of less than 5 hp and not causing pollution, after accepting the fee for license, without the no objection certificate of another establishment or the special permission of the Village Panchayat, the Secretary can issue license. Sub rule (4) provides that an appeal can be filed against the decision of the Village Panchayat before the Green Channel Counter. Sub rule (5) further provides that before granting permission under sub rule (3) the Village Panchayat shall make such consultations as provided under clauses (a), (b) and (c), with the Inspector of Factories and in certain cases the Divisional Fire Officer etc. 12. Therefore it could be seen that that the D&O rules contemplate two situations. One is with reference to an application under rule 12 to be submitted to the Village Panchayat, in which case as per rule 12(3) the Village Panchayat has the authority to issue such permission. However in an instance coming under rule 12(3)(d), the Secretary can issue a license in respect of factories or industrial establishments with machinery capacity, having less than 5 hp and if he is of opinion that the factory or industrial establishment does not cause pollution. The second situation is in terms of rule 5, wherein application is to be given to the Secretary in respect of every place notified under rule 4. Such an application is to be filed by an existing unit which was in operation at the time of notification. In that case the President is empowered to grant the license. In respect of Rule 12 the Village Panchayat has to give permission and the power therefore should apparently vest with the President of the Panchayat as he is the administrative head of the Village Panchayat. The Secretary's power to grant license as per rules is only in respect of a situation as contemplated under rule 12(3)(d). In respect of Rule 12 the Village Panchayat has to give permission and the power therefore should apparently vest with the President of the Panchayat as he is the administrative head of the Village Panchayat. The Secretary's power to grant license as per rules is only in respect of a situation as contemplated under rule 12(3)(d). Reference to rule 25 also indicates that the President is given the power to take any action in case of violation of the conditions of license or if a court of law has convicted the licensee under the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, or an offence has been committed in respect of any matter connected with the license, the license can be canceled. 13. The question to be considered is regarding the authority of the Village Panchayat in issuing or refusing a license under the D&O Rules in view of the specific conferment of power on the Secretary as per section 232 of the Act. The word “Secretary” has been incorporated with effect from 24.3.1999 to section 232 of the Act, by way of substitution for the words “Village Panchayat”. The D&O Rules came into force as per SRO No.76 of 1996. Rule 1(2) indicates that the rules shall come into force at once. But it is notified in the Kerala Gazzette only on 23.4.2003. Apparently at the time of framing of the rules the Village Panchayat alone had the power under section 232 of the Act and the President was given the power to issue the license. Whereas when the amendment was made to section 232 of the Act, with effect from 24.3.1999, the same is not incorporated in the D&O Rules. This has given rise to certain controversies in respect of the authority to issue the license. It is a settled principle of law that rules cannot be framed contrary to the provisions of the statute and therefore, when section 232 of the Act gives power on the Secretary of the Panchayat to issue license to such establishments coming under the schedule, the D&O rules have to be read as if the power is vested with the Secretary. 14. But it is relevant to note that consideration of the application for establishing a factory or a workplace where power is used in any form is purely within the authority of the Village Panchayat. 14. But it is relevant to note that consideration of the application for establishing a factory or a workplace where power is used in any form is purely within the authority of the Village Panchayat. It is only on the basis of a decision taken by the Village Panchayat that the Secretary could issue a license in terms of section 233 of the Act. Further in instances covered by section 233 of the Act, only after permission is obtained under section 233 does the question of granting license under section 232 arises. But in a case where the applicant does not employ power of any form, apparently a situation as contemplated under section 233 may not arise. There could be a situation where even without an application being filed under section 233 an application is required to be submitted under section 232 read with D&O rules. In such situations, the Secretary will be the only authority to decide whether the license could be granted or not. But such conferment of power does not mean to indicate that the Village Panchayat has no powers in the matter relating to the grant or refusal of permission under section 233 of the Act. 15. In W.A.No.250/2012, the Village Panchayat has taken a common decision not to grant any fresh license for conducting quarries on account of the objection by the people in the locality. They have passed a resolution, not to grant permission to any person in future for operating a quarry. Whether such a decision can be taken by the Panchayat is the question. No doubt while considering an application under section 233(3) of the Act the Village Panchayat can consider whether the grant of such permission is objectionable or not, on account of density of population in the area or the possibility to cause nuisance or pollution. In the case on hand based on complaints given by the people of the locality a resolution was already passed by the Panchayat, and when the petitioner submitted an application for a quarry license, the petitioner was informed by the Secretary that in view of the resolution by the Panchayat Committee the license cannot be issued. 16. In the case on hand based on complaints given by the people of the locality a resolution was already passed by the Panchayat, and when the petitioner submitted an application for a quarry license, the petitioner was informed by the Secretary that in view of the resolution by the Panchayat Committee the license cannot be issued. 16. Having gone through the various provisions, especially sections 232, 233 and the D&O rules, we are of the view that when a composite application is submitted by a person under sections 232 and 233, a decision to grant a license or permission under section 233 is to be taken by the Village Panchayat and the decision to issue license under section 232 is to be taken by the Secretary. If the Panchayat decides not to grant permission under section 233, the Secretary cannot separately consider the application under section 232 read with D&O rules. Whereas if an application is submitted by a person only under section 232 of the Act read with D&O Rules, and a permission under section 233 is not required, the Secretary is competent to consider the application and pass appropriate orders. That apart in matters coming under rule 12(3)(d) of the D&O rules also power is conferred on the Secretary. 17. The Village Panchayat can of course pass resolutions as permitted by the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Reference is made to section 166 (1) of the Act, read with third schedule. It relates to the functions of the Panchayat. The mandatory and other functions enumerated in the third schedule, does not empower the Panchayat to take a decision as stated in Ext.P8. In a case where an application is filed by a person seeking to establish a factory, workplace or other establishments, the said application cannot be summarily rejected by stating that the Panchayat has taken a policy decision not to permit any such establishments in the Panchayat area. Such an authority is not seen vested with the Panchayat, under the provisions of sections 166(1), 232, 233 or the D &O Rules. No other provision of law is brought to our notice to justify such a decision. That apart a decision like Ext.P8 will affect the constitutional right of an individual to carry on business or trade and put his property to the best advantage. No other provision of law is brought to our notice to justify such a decision. That apart a decision like Ext.P8 will affect the constitutional right of an individual to carry on business or trade and put his property to the best advantage. The Panchayat will have to consider each application on its own merits and decide whether permission could be granted or not. 18. However if the application is filed for establishing a unit which does not come under section 233 of the Act and if it comes only under section 232 of the Act, or under rule 12(3)(d) of the D&O rules, the license is to be issued only by the Secretary. 19. In the light of the specific conferment of power on the Secretary to issue license in regard to establishments coming purely under section 232 of the Act read with D&O rules, even if it is stated in the rules that the President is empowered to issue such a license, the rules have to be read as if the power is vested under rule 6, 7, 8 and 11 on the Secretary of the Village Panchayat. 20. The respondent placed strong reliance on Ext.P1 resolution of the Panchayat to indicate that the Panchayat has already issued licence under Section 233 of the Act, and therefore a different opinion is not possible. According to the respondent, what remains is only a licence under Section 232 of the Act. We do not think so. Ext.P1 is only a decision taken by the Panchayat in regard to certain complaints from the people in the locality. It is resolved that there is no material to indicate any health hazard in operating a quarry and storing explosives. It is decided to place the matter before the District Collector for granting permission for storing explosives and quarrying on condition that the respondent shall produce all relevant documents and licence from Panchayat. Therefore obtaining licence from the Panchayat was a pre-condition in Ext.P1 decision. It is clear that the said decision is not based on an enquiry as contemplated under Section 233 of the Act. Hence the petitioner cannot place reliance on Ext.P1 decision and avoid an enquiry under Section 233 of the Act. 21. Therefore obtaining licence from the Panchayat was a pre-condition in Ext.P1 decision. It is clear that the said decision is not based on an enquiry as contemplated under Section 233 of the Act. Hence the petitioner cannot place reliance on Ext.P1 decision and avoid an enquiry under Section 233 of the Act. 21. When viewed in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the facts of each case we have arrived at the following decision: (i) In W.A.No.250 of 2012, the judgment of the learned single Judge is modified to the following extent: The respondent's application for licence under Section 233 of the Act and Rule 12 of the D&O Rules, shall be considered and decided by the appellant/Village Panchayat without reference to Ext.P8 resolution and if approved, the Secretary shall further consider whether license under section 232 read with the D&O rules could be issued in favour of the petitioner. (ii) In W.A.No.1200 of 2012 the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the impugned order at Ext.P7 is quashed. The Village Panchayat is directed to consider and pass orders in the application of the petitioner/appellant as per the procedure prescribed under section 233 of the Act and Rule 12 of the D&O Rules and if approved, the Secretary shall thereafter consider whether license could be issued under section 232 read with the D&O Rules.