JUDGMENT : The case set up in this WP(c) is as follows: The petitioner, a contractor, was entrusted with the work of construction of Mavilakunnu Canal Road of Ward No. 14 of the 5th respondent Gramapanchayat on 02.01.2016. The work was carried out to the satisfaction of the 5th respondent Panchayat and the total value of the work done was submitted for Rs.1,99,999/-. The said amount was sanctioned after due verification. Later during the floods, the road was damaged and the 5th respondent Panchayat as per Ext.P3 decision resolved to recover the entire amount from the petitioner. Ext.P2 report of the Asst. Engineer reveals that the road was damaged not because of the fault of the petitioner. Ext.P2 report was ignored by the respondent panchayat while passing Ext.P3 decision. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act before the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P4 petition which is numbered as DA 4341273/2020. Ext.P4 is pending consideration. In the meanwhile the 3rd respondent, Deputy Tahasildar, initiated revenue recovery proceedings as per Ext.P6 to recover an amount of Rs.2,51,344/-. The writ petition is filed seeking to direct the 1st respondent to expedite Ext.P4 and to further direct respondents 2 to 4 to keep in abeyance Ext.P6 revenue recovery proceedings till the final outcome of Ext.P4 pending before the 1st respondent. 2. Heard Sri.D. Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K.J. Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. S. Nirmal, learned counsel appearing for R5 and R6 & Kayakodi Gramapanchayat. 3. Sri.D. Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made submissions in tune with the WP(c). Per contra, Sri. 2. Heard Sri.D. Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K.J. Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri. S. Nirmal, learned counsel appearing for R5 and R6 & Kayakodi Gramapanchayat. 3. Sri.D. Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has made submissions in tune with the WP(c). Per contra, Sri. S. Nirmal learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6 (Kayakodi Gramapanchayat) would submit that the petitioner cannot legally challenge Ext.P3 by taking recourse to a proceedings under section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act before the 1st respondent State Government and that, though, Ext.P3 styled as a resolution, in substance its content is a demand arising out of the alleged damages suffered by the respondent Panchayat due to the alleged deficiency in the quality of the work done by the petitioner in his contractual obligations and that therefore, the remedy of the petitioner could only be to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, by filing an appeal in terms of Section 276(5)(a) which deals with such appellate remedy in the matters of assessment, demand etc. Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act deals with appeals and revision before the said statutory tribunal. Section 276(5) provides as follows: “The provision under Rule 12(4) is only an additional or alternate remedy – There is no statutory inhibition compelling one to get confined to appeal or revision that is provided under Section 276 – Rule 12(4) is valid. 4. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of subsection 5 of Section 276 would deal only with the limited matters explicitly enumerated and covered in clauses a and b of Subsection 5 of Section 276. Therefore, appeal would lie only in cases relating to assessment, demand and collection of taxes, fee or cess as per clause 'a' or in a case relating to grant of permission and licenses for trades, factories, markets and other establishments as covered by clause 'b' thereof. Therefore, appeal would lie only in cases relating to assessment, demand and collection of taxes, fee or cess as per clause 'a' or in a case relating to grant of permission and licenses for trades, factories, markets and other establishments as covered by clause 'b' thereof. That indisputably, clause 'b' would not come into play and the word 'demand' appearing in clause 'a' should be read in conjunction with other words therein, assessment, demand and collection of taxes or fee or cess and that the subject matter of the appeal should either be in respect of assessment in relation to taxes or fee or cess or should be a demand of taxes, fee or cess after such due assessment or collection of taxes or fee or cess after such assessment and demand. That in the instant case, the decision taken by the respondent Gramapanchayat as per the impugned Ext.P3 is that the road works executed by the petitioner was later found to be bad in quality as it was affected during the floods and the allegations to the effect that due to the alleged deficiency in the quality of service done by the petitioner contractor, the respondent Gramapanchayat has suffered damages and that the same should be re-couped by the petitioner etc and that such a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Gramapanchayat will not come within the ambit of section 276, more particularly, the matters enumerated in subsection 5 of section 276. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the counsel for the petitioner is right in making such a submission, that an appeal may not lie before the Tribunal in the nature of the disputes raised in relation to the issuance of the impugned Ext.P3. 5. Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 deals with the powers conferred with the Government for cancellation and suspension of resolutions passed by local bodies. The petitioner would point out that Ext.P3 decision is taken on the basis of a resolution passed by the respondent Gramapanchayat and according to the petitioner, it is beyond the powers of the respondent Panchayat to take a decision as taken in the impugned resolution as per Ext. The petitioner would point out that Ext.P3 decision is taken on the basis of a resolution passed by the respondent Gramapanchayat and according to the petitioner, it is beyond the powers of the respondent Panchayat to take a decision as taken in the impugned resolution as per Ext. P3 in as much as the dispute as to whether the quality of the work done by the petitioner was deficient and whether if such deficiency resulted in road getting subsequently damaged due to floods, etc are all disputed questions of fact and in such a case, the respondent Panchayat cannot be the sole adjudicator to decide the issue and such an issue is to be decided only before the Civil Court, if the law provides for any such forum for adjudicating such disputes. Per contra, Sri. S. Nirmal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Gramapanchayat would submit that the said resolution has been passed within the powers of the respondent Gramapanchayat in terms of the provisions contained in Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder and after issuance of due show cause notice to the petitioner etc. This Court need not enter into the said issue so as to adjudicate and decide as to whether or not the respondent Panchayat has the jurisdiction and competence to take a resolution as the one taken in Ext.P3. The competence and jurisdiction of the Panchayat to pass such a resolution could certainly be agitated by both sides in a petition filed by the affected person before the competent authority of the State Government in terms of section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Therefore those issues need not be considered by this Court and it is within the domain of the 1st respondent Government to consider and decide such issues. Accordingly it is ordered that the competent authority of the 1st respondent State Government will take up the matters raised by the petitioner in Ext.P3 petition dated 13.03.2020 and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 6th respondent Gramapanchayat through their authorised representatives/counsel if any, should render a decision on the matters raised in Ext.P4 in accordance with law, without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Until a decision is taken by the 1st respondent State Government on the matters raised in Ext.P4 in accordance with law as aforestated, further coercive steps for enforcement of the impugned Ext.P5 proceedings by taking recourse to Ext.P2, proceedings including the demand as per Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions the above WP(c) will stand finally disposed of.