JUDGMENT : The petitioner is the widow of one late K. Babu, who was running a bakery and Medical Shop at room Nos. 865A and 865 at Parippally Shopping Complex owned by the Kalluvathukkal Grama Panchayat, the 1st respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, late Babu was running the business in the said building from 1992 onwards on the basis of the rent/license deeds executed periodically and the last deed was executed on 01.02.2019 for a period of one year with effect from 01.04.2019. On 06.08.2019, Babu passed away due to heart attack. According to the petitioner, on 24.08.2019, the petitioner had requested the Panchayat to change the license of the shop room in her name and also conveyed that the income generated from the business conducted in the building is the only source of livelihood of herself and her family. 3. On 24.08.2019, the Panchayat had apparently issued Ext. P6 notice without addressing anyone. In the notice, it is stated that since Sri. Babu died, functioning of the shop in the building is against the provisions of the terms and conditions of auction and therefore, the Panchayat has decided to conduct fresh auction and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises on or before 31.08.2019. It is also pointed out that on 01.09.2019, Ext. P7 notice was published in the notice board of the Grama Panchayat informing the public that the shop rooms will be auctioned on 18.09.2019 at 3 p.m., which came to the notice of the petitioner belatedly. It was under the aforesaid background that the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking to quash Ext. P6 notice dated 24.08.2019 and Ext. P7 auction notice dated 01.09.2019. The petitioner has also sought for consideration of Ext. P5 representation dated nil requesting the Panchayat to transfer the licence in favour of the petitioner. 4. The Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and the claims and demands raised by the petitioner. The paramount contention advanced is that even though Ext. P6 notice and the auction notice are dated 24.08.2019 and 01.09.2019, the petitioner has approached this Court on the date fixed for the auction, which itself would show that the petitioner has no interest in the shop rooms. Such a contention is advanced on the basis that the petitioner's husband late Babu has alienated the shop rooms by executing Ext. P6 notice and the auction notice are dated 24.08.2019 and 01.09.2019, the petitioner has approached this Court on the date fixed for the auction, which itself would show that the petitioner has no interest in the shop rooms. Such a contention is advanced on the basis that the petitioner's husband late Babu has alienated the shop rooms by executing Ext. R1(a) document and has received an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs from one Abdul Bysi. It is also the submission of the Panchayat that when the subject issue was intimated to the said Abdul Bysi, he had surrendered the key of the building to the Panchayat and it was thereafter that Ext. P7 auction notice was issued on 01.09.2019. Therefore, according to the Panchayat, there is no manner of illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the Panchayat in issuing the impugned notice and it was accordingly that, auction was conducted on 18.09.2019 and confirmed it in favour of the said Abdul Bysi. It is also submitted that the possession is still remaining with the Panchayat, since this writ petition is pending before this Court. 5. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner refuting the allegations raised by the Panchayat and also submitting that in fact the petitioner has not received Ext. P6 notice in person and the said notice was put in one of the shop rooms in question and therefore, the Panchayat has not complied with the statutory requirements as per the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('Act, 1994' for short). The petitioner has also produced a bylaw made by the Panchayat and approved by the statutory authority in contemplation of law and it is submitted that as per clause (6) of the byelaw, even without auction, the rooms can be allotted in favour of the existing licensee by fixing enhanced rent. According to the petitioner, a legal heir of the licensee is, therefore, entitled to make a request to transfer the licences in favour of the legal heirs. It is also pointed out that the mandatory requirements of law are not complied with by the Panchayat before evicting the petitioner from the premises. 6. It is further stated that when this writ petition was admitted to the files of this Court, on 18.09.2019 as a today motion, an interim order was passed by this Court suspending further proceedings pertaining to Ext. 6. It is further stated that when this writ petition was admitted to the files of this Court, on 18.09.2019 as a today motion, an interim order was passed by this Court suspending further proceedings pertaining to Ext. P7 auction notice dated 01.09.2019 for a period of two weeks. However, in spite of Ext. P8 and P8(a) e-mails issued to the Panchayat at 14:27 hours and 14:40 hours on the same day, the Panchayat proceeded with the auction ignoring the same. Moreover, Ext. R1(a) deed alleged to be executed by and between late Babu and Abdul Bysi are denied and various allegations are raised, including a contention that the stamp paper was purchased from a vendor at Parassala, which is a place far away from the Panchayat area and that by itself would show that it is a fabricated document to make an attempt to establish that there was transfer of the rights enjoyed by late Babu in the building in question. 7. The auction purchaser namely Sri. Abdul Bysi has got himself impleaded in the writ petition as additional second respondent and basically in it he has contended that the shop rooms were bid by him in the auction and he became the tenant of the shop room. No counter affidavit is filed by the additional second respondent. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Harish Gopinath, Sri. G. Bhagavet Singh for the first respondent Grama Panchayat and Sri. Liju M.P for the additional second respondent, and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 9. One thing is clear, if I proceed to sort out the issue, going through the facts I may fail because they are complex, which can only be deciphered by a fact finding body or a court. A writ court considering the writ petition in a summary manner would not be able to finally conclude as to the rival submissions made, since they are contrary to each other. According to the petitioner, her husband was in possession of the premises till his death. However, the Panchayat has a case that the building was alienated by late Babu by accepting an amount of Rs.25 lakhs and in order to establish the same alone, Ext. R1(a) deed is alleged to be executed by Sri. Babu in favour of Abdul Bysi. Therefore, the petitioner is disputing Ext. However, the Panchayat has a case that the building was alienated by late Babu by accepting an amount of Rs.25 lakhs and in order to establish the same alone, Ext. R1(a) deed is alleged to be executed by Sri. Babu in favour of Abdul Bysi. Therefore, the petitioner is disputing Ext. R1(a) by stating various aspects and thereby, a cleavage is remaining as to whether there was alienation of the building in question by late Babu in favour of Abdul Bysi, which can only be clearly identified after taking evidence. 10. In fact, the issue with respect to subletting to another is covered by the Kerala Panchayat (Acquisition and Disposal of property) Rules, 2005 ('Rules, 2005' for short), a rule introduced on and with effect from 27.03.2006, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 178 of the Act, 1994 read with clause (xxxvii) of sub-Section (2) of Section 254 of the Act, 1994. 11. Rule 7 deals with grant of Panchayat's own property for rent or lease or licence. Sub-Rules (1) to (6) thereto are relevant to the context and they read thus : 7. Grant of Panchayat's own property for rent or lease on licence.— (1) A Panchayat may construct buildings for the purpose of trade or otherwise and can give the same to the public who require them on rent or lease on license in accordance with provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder and the bylaws that may be made by the Panchayat for this purpose and may also levy fees that may be decided by the Panchayat for its enjoyment and possession. (2) Every licence under sub-rule (1) shall contain the conditions for the enjoyment and possession of that building or room or space, in it and rate of fees and time of payment, and the above said conditions and stipulations shall be written in the form of an agreement in stamped paper of appropriate value and shall also be in accordance with Form III appended to these rules. (3) No building or room or space given on rent under sub-rule (1), shall be subletted to another or change its nature of use by the licensee. (3) No building or room or space given on rent under sub-rule (1), shall be subletted to another or change its nature of use by the licensee. (4) If at any time the Secretary feels that any building or room given on rent to any person under sub-rule (1), has been subletted to another person, he shall cancel the licence issued to such person immediately by an order and direct the person or persons enjoying and possessing that building or room or space, as the case may be, to vacate within the time mentioned in the order. Provided that the Secretary shall before issuing an order cancelling the licence and also before evicting the user or the possessor, give notice asking him to show cause the reason if any, for not issuing such order within a reasonable time, to be specified in the notice. (5) If the order under sub-rule (4) is not complied within the time specified therein, the Secretary shall evict such person or persons from the building, room or space with or without the assistance of police and the building, room or space, as the case may be, shall be closed. Thereafter all the properties found in that premises become the property of the Panchayat and shall be disposed of and the income therefrom shall be credited in the Panchayat fund. (6) Every person having been granted a licence as per sub-rule (1) shall remit without demand the licence fee and other charges at the rate specified in the agreement within the time mentioned therein. 12. On an analysis of Rule 7(3), it is specific and clear that no building or room or space given on rent under sub-Rule (1), shall be sublet to another or change its nature of use by the licensee. Sub-Rule 4 makes it clear that if at any time, the Secretary feels that any building or room given on rent to any person under sub-Rule (1) has been sublet to another person, he shall cancel the licence issued to such person immediately by an order and direct the person or persons enjoying and possessing that building or room or space, as the case may be, to vacate within the time mentioned in the order. 13. 13. However, the proviso makes it clear that the Secretary shall, before issuing an order cancelling the licence and also before evicting the user or the possessor, give notice asking him to show cause the reason if any, for not issuing such order within a reasonable time, to be specified in the notice. 14. Admittedly, Ext. P6 notice dated 24.08.2019 is the one issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises on or before 31.08.2019, since she was continuing in the building after the death of the licensee, and in order to enable the Panchayat to take action, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises. There is no case for the Panchayat that any other notice other than Ext.P6 was issued to the petitioner. It may be a matter for consideration of the Panchayat whether there was subletting, and it is with the said avowed objective that the proviso was incorporated to sub-Rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules, 2005 enabling the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to conduct an enquiry with respect to the subletting/alienation by the licensee in favour of any third person. 15. This is a case where any such notice as is contemplated under the proviso was issued by the Secretary before directing the petitioner, who is the wife of late Babu, to surrender vacant possession of the premises in question. Yet another aspect is that it is an admitted fact that the licence was renewed in favour of Babu on 01.02.2019 for a period of one year from 01.04.2019. Therefore, when the licence was in force, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was duty bound to cancel the licence as per sub-Rule (4) before directing the person or persons enjoying and possessing that building or room or space to vacate. 16. Moreover, in Ext. P6, there is no case for the Panchayat that the building was sublet or alienated. But, the sole reason assigned in Ext. P6 is that since the licensee Sri. Babu died, the petitioner is not liable to surrender possession. The case with respect to the subletting was developed by the Panchayat only in the counter affidavit, which can only be seen as an afterthought to resist the contentions advanced in the writ petition. But, the sole reason assigned in Ext. P6 is that since the licensee Sri. Babu died, the petitioner is not liable to surrender possession. The case with respect to the subletting was developed by the Panchayat only in the counter affidavit, which can only be seen as an afterthought to resist the contentions advanced in the writ petition. But fact remains the aspect of subletting is a matter to be identified by the Secretary of the Panchayat after issuing notices in contemplation of the rules 2005, which is a mandatory requirement for satisfying the principles of natural justice stemming out from Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. That apart, Ext. R1(a) is the alleged assignment deed executed by late Babu in favour of Abdul Bysi. The Panchayat has a case that notice was issued to Abdul Bysi who was the transferee from Sri. Babu and he had surrendered the key of the building. It is also evident that various documents were produced by the petitioner in regard to the supply of medical and bakery products probably to establish that late Babu was in possession of the building till his death. It is true, the document produced by the petitioner would show that supplies were made. But, again it is a factual aspect to be ascertained by conducting appropriate enquiry as to whether the business was conducted by Sri. Babu or by the sub-lessee. Anyhow, when there is a clear statutory provision in respect of the manner in which the subletting is to be dealt with, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat is liable to follow the same. One thing clearly discernible from the contentions raised by the Panchayat is that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has not issued any notice at all asking the petitioner to show cause why she shall not be evicted from the premises for subletting the building. The provisions of Rule 7 clearly show that they are inquisitorial in nature and not adversarial and therefore without conducting appropriate enquiry, the occupier or the legal heir cannot be evicted. This is more so since, the bye law constituted by the Panchayat enables a licensee to seek for renewal and the Panchayat is at liberty to renew it by enhancing the license fee, and in my considered opinion a legal heir of the licensee is also entitled to get benefit of the same. 18. This is more so since, the bye law constituted by the Panchayat enables a licensee to seek for renewal and the Panchayat is at liberty to renew it by enhancing the license fee, and in my considered opinion a legal heir of the licensee is also entitled to get benefit of the same. 18. As I have pointed out earlier, even Ext. P6 notice issued by the Panchayat is not in terms of the provisions of the Rules, 2005. Therefore, looking from that angle it can be seen that a valuable right conferred on a licensee is absolutely overlooked making the action of the Panchayat an arbitrary one. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that since the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat having not followed the mandatory requirements of law before evicting the licensee or the legal heir of the licensee from the premises, the action transforms into an illegal and arbitrary one being clearly violative of the principles of natural justice and accordingly liable to be interfered with exercising the power of discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I quash Ext. P6 notice and direct the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to conduct a due enquiry in contemplation of Rule 7(4) of the Rules, 2005 and the proviso thereto, after issuing notice as is stipulated in the Rules. 19. When the writ petition was admitted to the files on 18th September, 2019, the following order was passed by this Court : “Issue urgent notice by speed post to the respondent, returnable in two weeks. Post immediately after service. I am informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that, Ext. P5 application was submitted before the Panchayat, seeking transfer of the licence in favour of the petitioner, who is the legal heir of the licensee, since the licensee has died. It is also submitted that, there is no rent arrears due to the Panchayat upto the date of the death of the husband of the petitioner. On the basis of the said submissions, the further proceedings pertaining to Ext. P7 notice dated 01.09.2019 will remain suspended for a period of two weeks.” 20. The order itself shows that it was a conditional one as there was no evidence, for the submission of Ext. On the basis of the said submissions, the further proceedings pertaining to Ext. P7 notice dated 01.09.2019 will remain suspended for a period of two weeks.” 20. The order itself shows that it was a conditional one as there was no evidence, for the submission of Ext. P5 application dated nil before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat and that there are no rent arrears due to the Panchayat up to the death of the husband of the petitioner. Neither the petitioner in the reply nor the Panchayat in its counter affidavit has stated as to whether there is any rent due. Moreover, during the course of arguments, it is admitted by the petitioner, the Panchayat, and the additional second respondent that the shop rooms still remain in the possession of the Panchayat and now almost two years have elapsed. Therefore, there is no point in directing the Panchayat to put the petitioner in possession of the building in question. But, since the basic requirements contained under the proviso to Rule 7(4) is not complied with by the Secretary of the Panchayat, I am of the considered opinion that the auction notice issued by the Panchayat is also illegal and bad, accordingly Ext P7 is also quashed 21. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to consider the issue after providing notice to the petitioner and any other interested person in contemplation of law. The petitioner would be free and at liberty to make appropriate request to the Panchayat in accordance with the provisions of Rules, 2005 and the bye-laws, seeking to transfer the licence right in favour of the petitioner and to produce documents to support the case projected by the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The matter shall be concluded as directed within six weeks thereafter, after providing notice of hearing to all concerned. All the factual issues raised by the parties are left open for the adjudication of the Secretary. This writ petition is allowed as above.