JUDGMENT : The 1st petitioner is a Constituent Parish Church of the Malankara Orthodox Church administered under the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church and the 2nd petitioner is the Vicar of the 1st petitioner Church. The petitioners represent the Orthodox (Catholicos) faction of the Malankara Church and the party respondents represent the Patriarch (Jacobite) faction. There were perpetual fight for managing the affairs of the Malankara Church between the two factions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Varghese K.S. and Others v. St. Peter's & Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church and Others [ (2017) 15 SCC 333 : 2017 (3) KLT 261 : 2017 KHC 6531], held that all churches under the Malankara Syrian Church will have to be administered in accordance with the 1934 Constitution. It is stated by the petitioners that although the judgment in Varghese K.S. (supra) would govern the parties with respect to the Malankara Church, the Patriarch faction violated the directions therein and denied the rights of Vicars and others appointed in accordance with the 1934 Constitution to carry out religious services. This led to disturbance and disharmony among parishioners, prompting the filing of petitions for police protection. This Court, in Ext. P3 judgment, observing that in light of the fact that the Patriarch faction is bent on flouting the rule of law and creating an atmosphere of hostility and animosity among parishioners, directed the police to afford protection to the Vicars and Clergies appointed under the 1934 Constitution to conduct religious services in the St. Peter's and St. Paul's Orthodox Syrian Church, Chalisserry. 2. While so, the predecessor of the 2nd petitioner got information that the Jacobite faction is going to construct a new religious place/church in a property adjacent to St. Peter's and St. Paul's Orthodox Syrian Church, Chalisserry and its parish hall and quarters. On enquiry, it was revealed that the 5th respondent had submitted an application before the 3rd respondent, Chalissery panchayat for the construction of a church on behalf of the Jacobite faction under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 and the panchayat has, by Ext. P4, resolved that since the application pertains to church/religious place, permission of the District Collector is required and therefore, the panchayat committee has entrusted the 4th respondent, the Secretary to make necessary application for the same. 3. On coming to know about the said decision, the predecessor of the 2nd petitioner submitted Ext. P4, resolved that since the application pertains to church/religious place, permission of the District Collector is required and therefore, the panchayat committee has entrusted the 4th respondent, the Secretary to make necessary application for the same. 3. On coming to know about the said decision, the predecessor of the 2nd petitioner submitted Ext. P5 complaint before the District Collector with respect to the proposed construction of the new church adjacent to the 1st petitioner Church. Ext. P5 complaint was made over to the 4th respondent Secretary along with Ext. P6 covering letter by the District Collector. While so, the 4th respondent issued Ext. P7 letter stating that though, 5th respondent's application seeking permission for construction of the church was forwarded for the permission of the District Collector, it was returned by the District Collector in view of the directions in G.O (P) No.19/2021/Home dated 14.02.2021 (Ext. P11) holding that as per the amendment brought in by the said Government Order to Ext. P10, the respective Local Self-Government Institutions could grant building permit for the religious institutions and that Ext. P8 permit dated 08.03.2021 was also issued to the 5th respondent for the construction of the church, in accordance with law, after site inspection and examining the files. Further, it was informed that, the Station House Officer, Chalisserry was requested to submit a report regarding the law and order issue referred to in Ext. P5 complaint. 4. According to the petitioners, by virtue of Entry-1, List-ll of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, the power to promulgate laws under Entry-1 (public order) vests with the respective State Governments. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, had on 23.06.2008, issued Ext. P9 'Guidelines on Communal Harmony' for State Governments. As per clause 3.16 of Ext. P9, construction of any religious places shall require prior permission from the District Collector. Clause 3.16 reads as follows:- “3.16 Any construction of religious places shall be made only after the proposals / plans are duly approved by the appropriate authority / statutory body and at the earmarked places. Cases of construction of unauthorized religious places should be dealt with severely under the existing laws. Negligence on the part of the District administration in implementing this direction should be seriously viewed and guilty dealt with.” 5. Cases of construction of unauthorized religious places should be dealt with severely under the existing laws. Negligence on the part of the District administration in implementing this direction should be seriously viewed and guilty dealt with.” 5. The Government of Kerala have promulgated 'Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony' as per Ext. P10 Government Order (G.O(P) No.217/05/Home dated 25.07.2005). Guideline No. 23 of Ext. P10 reads as follows: “23. "Any construction of religious place should be made only with prior approval of the District Authorities and at the earmarked place. Cases of construction of unauthorized religious places should be dealt with severely under existing laws. Negligence on the part of the District Administration in implementing this direction should be seriously viewed and the guilty dealt with. 23 (a) (i). Renovation of existing places of worship can be undertaken after informing the matter to the District Administration. However, any addition or expansion to the existing structure should be done only with the previous permission and concurrence of the District Administration. This addition or expansion should not in any way cause any inconvenience to the public, should not obstruct traffic, should not be an impediment to the future expansion of roads and other public amenities. Any addition or expansion can be undertaken only with observing the building rules and with the prior permission of Town Planning Department or Local Self Government, as the case may be: (ii) Any new construction of a place of worship shall be done only with the clearance of the District Administration. Any religious activities centered around a newly established places of worship should not precipitate communal tension or law and order situation. Before sanctioning requests for construction of new place of religious worship, the District Administration should ensure this. In such cases the District Administration may take recourse to shift the place of worship after arriving at a consensus with the parties concerned.” Thus it is stated that Ext. P10 guidelines mandatorily require prior permission from the District Collector in order to construct a new religious place. In such cases the District Administration may take recourse to shift the place of worship after arriving at a consensus with the parties concerned.” Thus it is stated that Ext. P10 guidelines mandatorily require prior permission from the District Collector in order to construct a new religious place. Further, as per Rule 5 (8A) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, for the development or redevelopment for religious purpose or worship, prior approval or clearance or permission or concurrence, as the case may be, of the District Collector concerned shall be obtained and also the condition stipulated in the Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony which is in force has to be complied with. As per Rule 5(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, the Secretary of the Local Body is duty bound to obtain, if not produced by the applicant, a written consent/concurrence/NOC from the District Collector before issuing the permit for the proposed building/places for religious purpose or worship. Similar is the procedure contemplated under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Therefore, it is contended that under Ext. P9 Guidelines on Communal Harmony issued by the Central Government, Ext. P10 Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony issued by the State Government and also under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, prior permission from the District Collector is necessary to start construction of a church/religious place. 6. While so, Government of Kerala brought in Ext. P11 order (G.O (P) No. 19/2021/Home dated 14.02.2021) amending paragraph 23 of Ext. P10 Manual of Guidelines. Ext. P11 order reads as follows:- “In the G.O. read as 3rd paper above, a Manual of Guidelines to prevent and control communal Disturbances and to promote Communal Harmony was re -issued by the Government. Now Government are pleased to amend the Manual of Guidelines with modification in Para 23 as detailed below: “23. Any construction of religious place should be made only with prior approval of the concerned Local Self Government Authority and at the earmarked place. Cases of construction of unauthorised religious places should be dealt with severely under existing laws. Negligence on the part of the Local Self Government Authorities in implementing this direction should be seriously viewed and the guilty dealt with. 23. Cases of construction of unauthorised religious places should be dealt with severely under existing laws. Negligence on the part of the Local Self Government Authorities in implementing this direction should be seriously viewed and the guilty dealt with. 23. (a)(i) Renovation of existing places of worship can be undertaken after informing the matter to the concerned Local Self Government Authority. Any addition or expansion to the existing structure should be done only with the previous permission and concurrence of the Local Self Government Authority. This addition or expansion should not in any way cause any inconvenience to the public, should not obstruct traffic, should not be an impediment to the future expansion of roads and other public amenities. Any addition or expansion can be undertaken only with observing the building rules and with the prior permission of Town Planning Department or Local Self Government, as the case may be; (ii) Any new construction of a place of worship shall be done only with the clearance of the concerned Local Self Government Authority. Any religious activities centered around a newly established places of worship should not precipitate communal tension or law and order situation. Before sanctioning requests for construction of new places of religious worship, the Local Self Government Authorities should ensure this. In such cases the Local Self Government Authorities may take recourse to shift the places of worship after arriving at a consensus with the parties concerned. The Manual of Guidelines to prevent and control communal Disturbances and to promote Communal Harmony shall stand modified to the above extent.” As per the amendment brought out by Ext. P11 to the Manual of Guidelines, for the construction of religious place, instead of prior approval from the District Collector, prior approval from the Local Self Government Institution would be sufficient. In the writ petition, besides Ext. P8 building permit, the petitioners impugn Ext. P11 amendment to Ext. P10 Manual for Communal Harmony to the extent it removed the rigor of obtaining prior permission from the District Collector for construction of religious place as arbitrary, illegal, hit by Wednesbury unreasonableness and opposed to Rule 5(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 and issued in derogation of the powers of the District Collector as District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. 7. This Court, on 07.07.2021, passed an interim order in the writ petition as follows:- “Construction of religious places of worship has been often causing communal tensions and law and order situation. The Government of Kerala hence framed Ext.P10 Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony, 2005. Paragraphs 23 and 23(a) of Ext.P10 Guidelines read as follows:- “23. Any construction of religious place should be made only with prior approval of the District Authorities and at the earmarked place. Cases of construction of unauthorised religious places should be dealt with severely under existing laws. Negligence on the part of the District Administration in implementing this direction should be seriously viewed and the guilty dealt with. 23 (a) (i) Renovation of existing places of worship can be undertaken after informing the matter to the District Administration. However, any addition or expansion to the existing structure should be done only with the previous permission and concurrence of the District Administration. This addition or expansion should not in any way cause any inconvenience to the public, should not obstruct traffic, should not be an impediment to the future expansion of roads and other public amenities. Any addition or expansion can be undertaken only with observing the building rules and with the prior permission of Town Planning Department of Local Self Government, as the case may be. (ii) Any new construction of a place of worship shall be done only with the clearance of the District Administration. Any religious activities come around a newly established places of worship should not precipitate communal tension or law and order situation. Before sanctioning requests for construction of new places of religious worship, the District Administration should ensure this. In such cases, the District Administration may take recourse to shift the places of worship after arriving at a consensus with the parties concerned.” A reading of Ext.P10 would show that the clearance to be given by the District Administration would be based on intelligence input received by the District Administration. Gathering of intelligence/information is important in granting such clearance. Now, the said Government Order has been amended as per Ext.P11. Paragraphs 23, 23(a)(i) and 23(a) (ii) of Ext.P10 Guidelines have been amended by Ext.P11 Government Order, wherein the power to grant clearance hitherto exercised by the District Administration has been entrusted with the Local Self Government Authorities. 2. Gathering of intelligence/information is important in granting such clearance. Now, the said Government Order has been amended as per Ext.P11. Paragraphs 23, 23(a)(i) and 23(a) (ii) of Ext.P10 Guidelines have been amended by Ext.P11 Government Order, wherein the power to grant clearance hitherto exercised by the District Administration has been entrusted with the Local Self Government Authorities. 2. Article 243G of the Constitution of India governs the powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats and Schedule 11 of the Constitution of India covers topics to be entrusted to the Panchayat Institutions. Gathering of intelligence information and policing, are not included in Schedule 11. 3. Section 174 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act empowers the State Government to delegate any of its function to the Panchayat Institutions. However, in the light of Article 243G and Schedule 11 of the Constitution of India and even otherwise, whether the State Government can delegate essential sovereign function like gathering of intelligence information to the Panchayat Institutions, is an important issue arising in this writ petition. Prima facie, that is what has been done as per Ext.P11. 4. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the legal issues arising in this writ petition are important and are to be looked into and heard in detail. Therefore, pending the writ petition, there will be an interim order staying the operation of Ext.P8 and Ext.P11 Government Order pending disposal of the writ petition. However, it is made clear that respondents 5 to 24 will be at liberty to proceed with the proposed construction in accordance with law, after obtaining clearance from the District Administration, pending the writ petition.” 8. In the counter affidavit dated 01.07.2021 filed on behalf of the Government, it was pointed out that the Government have brought out amendments to the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 and Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 as per Kerala Panchayat Building (Amendment) Rules, 2021 promulgated as per G.O (Ms) No. 120/2021/LSGD dated 28.06.2021 (Ext. P11(A)) and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, (Amendment) Rules, 2021 promulgated as G.O (Ms) No. 121/2021/LSGD dated 28.06.2021 (Ext. P11(B)) respectively, substituting the word "District Collector" occurring in column (3) under the heading 'officer/authority' against serial No. 5 in Column 1 in the table under Rule 5(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 with the word "Panchayat". P11(A)) and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, (Amendment) Rules, 2021 promulgated as G.O (Ms) No. 121/2021/LSGD dated 28.06.2021 (Ext. P11(B)) respectively, substituting the word "District Collector" occurring in column (3) under the heading 'officer/authority' against serial No. 5 in Column 1 in the table under Rule 5(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 with the word "Panchayat". By the said amendment, the requirement for the Secretary of the Panchayat/Municipality or the applicant to obtain NOC from the District Collector before applying for permit for constructing buildings/places for religious purpose or worship has been taken away and the same is vested with the Panchayat/Municipality itself. The petitioners have accordingly amended the writ petition by incorporating prayers to set aside Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) insofar as they amended Column No.3 of Serial No.5 of Rule 5(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019/Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 and substituted the officer/authority issuing NOC as Panchayat/Municipality instead of District Collector and to declare that Rule 4(ii) of the Kerala Panchayat Building (Amendment) Rules, 2021 (Ext.P11(A)) and Kerala Municipality Building (Amendment) Rules, 2021 (Ext. P11(B)) are blatant attempts to delegate essential sovereign functions to Local Self Government Institutions. A further prayer is sought to declare that the State Government has no power to delegate essential sovereign functions like maintenance of public order and tranquility or gathering of intelligence information and policing to the Local Self Government Institutions like Panchayat or Municipality by virtue of its powers under Section 174 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act or Section 59 of the Kerala Municipality Act. 9. According to the petitioners, the amendment brought out by Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) are absolutely arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the power conferred on the District Collector to use his wise discretion, based on intelligence reports was simply brushed aside and substituted with the wisdom of the Panchayat which has no expertise in the matter. By doing so, it is stated, the State Government is playing with the life and property of citizens and violating the rights of parishioners of the 1st petitioner Church ensured under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. By doing so, it is stated, the State Government is playing with the life and property of citizens and violating the rights of parishioners of the 1st petitioner Church ensured under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 243-G of the Constitution provides that, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-Government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats, at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to-(a) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; (b) the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. Referring to the said Constitutional provision, it is contended that neither Ext. P11 nor Exts. P11 (A) and P11(B) are issued by virtue of powers of the State Government under Article 243-G of the Constitution of India, nor do they constitute laws issued for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats with respect to (i) the preparations of plans for economic development and social justice; and (ii) the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. It is contended that maintenance of public order and tranquility or gathering of intelligence information and policing are not included in Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution and therefore State Government cannot usurp powers under the guise of Exts. P11, P11(A) or P11(B). It is further stated that, though Section 174 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act empowers the State Government to delegate any of its function to the Panchayat Institutions, such powers do not include essential sovereign functions. Maintenance of public order and tranquility or gathering of intelligence information and policing are essential sovereign functions which cannot be delegated even under Section 174 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 10. In the counter affidavit dated 01.07.2021 filed by the Government, it is stated that Exts. Maintenance of public order and tranquility or gathering of intelligence information and policing are essential sovereign functions which cannot be delegated even under Section 174 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 10. In the counter affidavit dated 01.07.2021 filed by the Government, it is stated that Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) amendments will result in broader participation in the process of making decision whether or not to permit construction of proposed buildings/places for religious purposes and their renovation, that too in a decentralized and time efficient manner by the elected members of the Local Self Government Institution. It is stated that the Municipality or Panchayat, as a body, can always have a direct first hand knowledge of the ground realities and can assess the situation in an objective manner. Referring to paragraphs 23 and 23 (a) of Ext. P11 G.O, as modified, it is stated that the construction of religious places and any new construction of a place of worship can be undertaken with the clearance of the Local Self Government Institutions and neither Ext. P11 G.O nor Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules take away, in any manner, the right of the District Administration to maintain law and order or to assess the law and order situation. Since the Local Self Government Institutions, before sanctioning requests for construction of new places of worship, should ensure that any religious activities centered around newly established places of worship should not precipitate communal tension or law and order situation, the Local Self Government Institutions certainly will have to obtain inputs from the law enforcement agencies regarding the law and order situation and it will be for the law enforcement agencies to assess the law and order situation. It is further stated that neither Ext. P11 G.O nor Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules give any power to the Local Self Government Institution other than to sanction construction/renovation of buildings for religious worship and the Amendment Rules are perfectly in accordance with the powers conferred on the Government as per Section 254 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Section 565 of the Kerala Municipality Act. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules give any power to the Local Self Government Institution other than to sanction construction/renovation of buildings for religious worship and the Amendment Rules are perfectly in accordance with the powers conferred on the Government as per Section 254 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Section 565 of the Kerala Municipality Act. In the additional counter affidavit dated 25.07.2022 filed by the Government in the amended writ petition, it is contended that Articles 243-G and 243-W are not the only repositories of the source of legislative power for the State to enact laws with regard to Panchayats and Municipalities and that Articles 243-G and 243-W are not legislative entries and are only enabling Constitutional provisions, entitling the State to bring in proper legislation and are subject to other provisions of the Constitution of India. It is stated that Article 246 read with Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India provides field for the State to enact legislation with regard to powers of local authorities and local Governments for the purpose of Local Self Government or Village administration. Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule provides field for the State to enact legislation with regard to land improvement. The erstwhile Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960, Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 and the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961 and the present Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 are legislations traceable, inter alia, to Entries 5 and 18 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 also are covering the aspects enabled in terms of Articles 243-G and 243-W respectively of the Constitution of India, making the said legislations in conformity with the Constitutional provisions. It is further stated that Chapter XXI of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 deals with 'buildings' and Section 235A of the said Act empowers the Government to make "Rules", inter alia, for the regulation or restriction of the use of sites for construction of a building and also for the regulation and restriction of the building construction. It is in pursuance of this Rule making power that the erstwhile Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 and the present Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 were framed. Framing of Rule 4(ii) of Ext. It is in pursuance of this Rule making power that the erstwhile Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 and the present Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 were framed. Framing of Rule 4(ii) of Ext. P11 (A) Amendment Rules, is also enabled by Section 235A of the said Act. Further, Article 243-G of the Constitution of India read with Eleventh Schedule thereto empowers the State to enact legislation with regard to land improvement. As per Section 274 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Government may declare that any of the provisions of the law relating to Municipalities in the State in force for the time being or the Rules framed thereunder shall extend to any Panchayat area. It was in exercise of the said power that the provisions of the erstwhile Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 were made applicable to Panchayats. Consequentially, the said power also enables the Government to bring in Ext. P11 Amendment Rules as well as Rule 4(ii) thereto. Further, Article 243-W of the Constitution of India read with Twelfth Schedule thereto also enables the State to frame laws with regard to urban planning including town planning and regulation of land use and construction of building. Chapter II of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 deals with "Drawings, Permits and Occupancy Certificates". Rule 5 of the said Rules deals with "Application for development/building permit”. Insofar as Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 deals with application, inter alia, for building permit, the same as well as Ext. P11(A) Amendment Rules are, in pith and substance, relatable to the fields of legislation emanating from Entries 5 and 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and are therefore, consequently within the sphere of power of the Government to frame subordinate legislation. It is contended that the averments of the petitioners that the power entrusted with the District Collector could not be sabotaged by virtue of a Government Order in the nature of Ext. P11, is incorrect. It is contended that the averments of the petitioners that the power entrusted with the District Collector could not be sabotaged by virtue of a Government Order in the nature of Ext. P11, is incorrect. The further averments and contentions to the effect that though Section 174 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act empowers the State Government to delegate any of its functions to the Panchayat Institutions, but such powers did not include essential sovereign functions; that maintenance of public order and tranquility or gathering of intelligence information and policing were essential sovereign functions which could not be delegated even under Section 174 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act; and that in the light of Article 243-G and Eleventh Schedule of the Constitution of India and even otherwise, the State Government could not delegate essential sovereign functions like maintenance of public order and tranquility or gathering of intelligence information and policing solely entrusted with the District Administration to Local Self Government Institutions, are also denied as incorrect. It is reiterated that neither Ext. P11 G.O nor Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules take away, in any manner, the right of the district administration to maintain law and order or to assess the law and order situation. According to the Government, neither Ext. P11 G.O nor Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules have resulted in delegation of essential sovereign functions like getting of information to the Local Self Government Institutions. It is also stated that Ext. P9 are merely guidelines and do not have any binding nature on the State, insofar as public order and policing are Entries in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Finally, it is stated that, State of Kerala is known for different religions and communities co-existing in complete harmony since time immemorial. 11. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners to the additional counter affidavit filed by the Government, rebutting the averments therein and reiterating the averments in the writ petition and contending that in Ext. P11, the 1st respondent has not stated any reason, whatsoever, for amending Ext. P10 and therefore, Ext. P11 is arbitrary, irrational and cannot be sustained. 12. The 16th respondent has filed a counter affidavit almost in similar lines with that filed by the Government. P11, the 1st respondent has not stated any reason, whatsoever, for amending Ext. P10 and therefore, Ext. P11 is arbitrary, irrational and cannot be sustained. 12. The 16th respondent has filed a counter affidavit almost in similar lines with that filed by the Government. The additional 26th respondent, the co-owner of the property, where the church building in dispute is proposed to be constructed, has filed a counter affidavit resisting the averments in the writ petition and contending that the petitioners have not stated any reason as to how they are aggrieved by the issuance of Ext. P8 building permit. It is contended that construction of separate church for their services and ceremonies would only bring forth peace in the church and the decision of the Panchayat to grant permit can be considered as a positive act to give quietus to the dispute and to relieve a long standing enmity between two factions whereby one faction has decided to withdraw from such litigation for the time being by constructing their own church with their religious ceremonies and services. It is further contended that the issue raised by the petitioners was already considered by this Court in Ext. R10A judgment (reported in Mohanan and another v. District Collector [ 2022 (1) KLT 613 : 2022 (1) KHC 441 : ILR 2022 (1) Ker. 761]). 13. Heard Sri. S.Sreekumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners assisted by Sri. Roshen D. Alexander; Sri. K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, the learned Advocate General along with Sri. V.Manu, learned Senior Government Pleader; Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent Panchayat, Sri. K. Shibili Naha, Sri. Santheep Ankarath and Sri. K.R. Rajkumar, the learned Central Government counsel for other respondents. 14. Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned senior counsel, referring to clause 3.16 of Ext. P9 'Guidelines on Communal Harmony' for State Governments issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India dated 23.06.2008, would contend that construction of any religious places shall require prior permission from the District Collector and such a power has been granted to the District Collector taking note of the provisions of Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for maintenance of public order and tranquility. The learned senior counsel would further contend that Ext. P10 Manual of Guidelines issued by the State Government in line with Ext. The learned senior counsel would further contend that Ext. P10 Manual of Guidelines issued by the State Government in line with Ext. P9 mandates prior permission from the District Collector for construction of new religious place. However, Ext. P10 was amended by Ext. P11 removing the rigor of obtaining prior permission from the District Collector and the same is vitiated by absence of reasons. Sri. Sreekumar also refers to Rules 5(8A) and 7 (8A) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 which provide that in the case of development or redevelopment/construction of new building for religious purpose or worship, prior approval or clearance or permission or concurrence, as the case may be, of the District Collector concerned, shall be obtained and the conditions stipulated in the 'Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony' which is in force be complied with. The learned senior counsel would contend that though the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 was superseded by the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 with effect from 08.11.2019, the Secretary of the Local Body is duty bound to obtain, if not produced by the applicant, a written consent concurrence/NOC from the District Collector before issuing the permit for the proposed building/places for religious purpose or worship. However, by Ext. P11(A) Kerala Panchayat Building (Amendment) Rules, 2021, the requirement for the Secretary or the applicant to obtain NOC from the District Collector before applying for permit for construction of religious purpose or worship is taken away and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 as amended by Ext. P11(A) provides that the Secretary shall obtain, if not produced by the applicant, a written consent/concurrence/NOC from the Panchayat before issuing the permit for proposed buildings/ places for religious purpose or worship. The learned senior counsel would contend that Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) amendments are attempts to delegate essential sovereign functions to Local Self Government Institutions and that the State Government have no power to delegate essential sovereign functions like maintenance of public order and tranquility or gathering of intelligence information and policing to the Local Self Government Institutions. It is contended that the amendment brought out by Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) amendments are attempts to delegate essential sovereign functions to Local Self Government Institutions and that the State Government have no power to delegate essential sovereign functions like maintenance of public order and tranquility or gathering of intelligence information and policing to the Local Self Government Institutions. It is contended that the amendment brought out by Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) are manifestly arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the power conferred on the District Collector to use his wise discretion, based on intelligence reports was simply brushed aside and substituted with the wisdom of the Panchayat which has no expertise in the matter. The learned senior counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Seventh Day Adventist Church and Another v. State of Kerala and others [ 2018 KHC 314 : 2018 (2) KLT 685 : ILR 2018 (2) Ker. 589] wherein it has been held that Ext. P10 Manual of Guidelines issued by the State Government drawing power from Article 162 of the Constitution of India is in accordance with law and all religions will have to follow the Manual of Guidelines before carrying out any construction, reconstruction etc; as contemplated under the Manual. The learned senior counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India [ (2017) 9 SCC 1 ] to contend that the amendments are manifestly arbitrary. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India [ (1985) 1 SCC 641 ] to contend that subordinate legislation can be challenged on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation can be challenged and that it can be challenged also on ground of unreasonableness and manifest arbitrariness. 15. The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, would contend that Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) being subordinate legislations, the petitioners have not made out any case of hostile discrimination or infringement of right to life or any right flowing therefrom, much less any other fundamental or Constitutional rights. 15. The learned Advocate General, on the other hand, would contend that Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) being subordinate legislations, the petitioners have not made out any case of hostile discrimination or infringement of right to life or any right flowing therefrom, much less any other fundamental or Constitutional rights. The learned Advocate General relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra S.B.O.S and H.S Education and another v. Paritosh [ (1984) 4 SCC 27 ], Indian Express Newspapers (supra), District Collector, Satara and another v. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid [ (2019)10 SCC 166 ] and the Division Bench decision of this Court in Pankajakshy and others v. George Mathew and others [1987 KHC 563] in support of his contention. As regards the contention of the petitioners that under Articles 243-G and 243-W read with the Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules, the State Government cannot delegate essential sovereign functions like maintenance of public order and tranquility or gathering of intelligence information and policing solely entrusted with the District Administration to a Local Self Government Institution, it is contended by the learned Advocate General that Articles 243G and 243-W are not the only repositories of the source of legislative power for the State to enact laws with regard to Panchayats and Municipalities and that Articles 243-G and 243W are not legislative entries and are only enabling constitutional provisions, entitling the State to bring in proper legislation and are subject to other provisions of the Constitution of India. The decisions of the Apex Court in U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh and others v. Daya Ram Saroj and Others [ (2007) 2 SCC 138 ] and State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Zila Parishad, Ghaziabad and another [ (2013) 11 SCC 783 ] were relied on in support of the said contention. It is also argued that neither Ext. P11 G.O nor Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules take away, in any manner, the right of the District Administration to maintain law and order or to assess the law and order situation. The Local Self Government Institutions have to obtain inputs from the law enforcement agencies regarding the law and order situation and it will be for the law enforcement agencies to assess the law and order situation. Ext. P11 G.O or Exts. The Local Self Government Institutions have to obtain inputs from the law enforcement agencies regarding the law and order situation and it will be for the law enforcement agencies to assess the law and order situation. Ext. P11 G.O or Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules do not give any power to Local Self Government Institutions other than to sanction construction or renovation of buildings for religious worship. It is further submitted that Ext. P11(A) Amendment Rules have been made in exercise of the powers under Section 254 read with Section 235A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The learned Advocate General refers to Section 235A (2) (b) and submits that the Rules made under Section 235A (1) has to provide that no site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship, if the construction thereon will wound the religious feelings of any class or persons. The Local Self Government Institutions, therefore, before issuing permission for construction of a building intended for public worship shall ensure that any religious activity centered around the proposed site would precipitate communal tension or law and order situation and have to obtain inputs from the law enforcing agencies to assess the law and order situation. It is contended that neither Ext. P11 G.O nor Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules have resulted in delegation of essential sovereign functions like maintenance of public order and tranquility or gathering of intelligence information and policing solely entrusted with the District Administration to the Local Self Government Institutions. 16. 'Public order' is a State subject under Entry 1, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The power to legislate on aspects of public order vests with the States. Maintenance of public order is the sovereign function of the State. Public order is generally equated with public peace and safety. Article 14 enjoins the State not to deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15 provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 25 of the Constitution of India deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion and reads as follows:- “25. Article 15 provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 25 of the Constitution of India deals with freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion and reads as follows:- “25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.- (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law- (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation I.-The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II.-In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.” Article 26 of the Constitution of India deals with freedom to manage religious affairs and reads as follows:- “26. Freedom to manage religious affairs.- Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right— (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law.” Restrictions by the State upon free exercise of religion are permitted under Articles 25 and 26 on grounds of public order, morality and health. Since public order is a State subject under Entry 1, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the State is competent to make laws regulating and restricting construction of buildings intended for public worship on grounds of public order. Since public order is a State subject under Entry 1, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, the State is competent to make laws regulating and restricting construction of buildings intended for public worship on grounds of public order. Section 235A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 deals with power of the Government to make rules for the regulation or restriction of the use of sites for the construction of buildings and for the regulation and restriction of building construction. Section 235A (2) (b) provides that the Rules made under Section 235A (1) may provide that no site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship, if the construction thereon will wound the religious feelings of any class or persons. The Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under section 235A. As per Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, it is for the State to enact legislation with regard to powers of Local Governments for the purpose of local self-government or village administration. The power of the State to make Ext. P11 (A) and Ext. P11(B) Rules is traceable to Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and Section 235A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Section 381 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, respectively. As stated, it is the primary responsibility of the State to make laws regarding public order. Restrictions by the State upon free exercise of religion are permitted both under Articles 25 and 26 on grounds of public order, morality and health. As regards the power of State to issue Ext. P11 Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony, this Court in Seventh Day Adventist Church (supra), held that the State has issued the same drawing power from Article 162 of the Constitution of India. The source of powers of the State to make Ext. P11, Ext. P11 (A) and Ext. P11(B) Rules are thus traceable to Entries 1 and 5, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. 17. The next question to be considered is whether Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) are issued by virtue of powers of the State under Articles 243-G and 243-W of the Constitution of India. P11, Ext. P11 (A) and Ext. P11(B) Rules are thus traceable to Entries 1 and 5, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. 17. The next question to be considered is whether Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) are issued by virtue of powers of the State under Articles 243-G and 243-W of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioners, neither Ext. P11 nor Exts. P11 (A) and P11(B) are issued by virtue of powers of the State Government under Article 243-G of the Constitution of India and that neither Ext. P11 nor Exts. P11 (A) and P11(B) are laws issued for devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats with respect to (i) the preparations of plans for economic development and social justice; and (ii) the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. 18. Part IV of the Constitution of India deals with Directive Principles of State Policy. Article 37 provides that the provisions contained in Part IV shall not be enforceable by any Court, but the principles laid down therein are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the Country and shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. Article 38 (1) provides that the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life. Article 40 deals with 'Organisation of Village Panchayats' and provides that the State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government. It is with this end in view the Parliament in exercise of its constituent powers under Article 368 amended the Constitution of India by the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992 inserting Part IX consisting of Articles 243 to 243-O under the head 'The Panchayats', w.e.f 24.04.1993. Likewise, Part IXA was also inserted by the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 w.e.f 01.06.1993 in the Constitution comprising Articles 243-P to 243-ZG under the head 'The Municipalities'. Likewise, Part IXA was also inserted by the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 w.e.f 01.06.1993 in the Constitution comprising Articles 243-P to 243-ZG under the head 'The Municipalities'. Article 243-G reads as under:- “243-G. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats-Subject to the provisions of this Constitution the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority and may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats, at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to (a) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; (b) the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. Article 243-G, thus provides that, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayat with such power and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self government. Article 243-G reaffirms what has been declared in Article 40. Article 243-G further provides that such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon the Panchayats, subject to conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Constitutional promise of social justice is contained in the Preamble to the Constitution. The Preamble reads as under: “WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political;....” The Preamble to the Constitution mentions about three types of justice, viz; social justice, economic justice and political justice. Article 38 envisages social welfare by securing and promoting social, political and economic justice. Article 243-G provides that the law made by State Legislature may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon the Panchayats with respect to implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them by such laws. Article 243-G is therefore in consonance with Article 38 under Directive Principles of State Policy also. Article 243-G provides that the law made by State Legislature may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon the Panchayats with respect to implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them by such laws. Article 243-G is therefore in consonance with Article 38 under Directive Principles of State Policy also. Article 243-G enables the Legislature of a State to make laws that devolve powers and responsibilities upon panchayats for the implementation of schemes for social justice and economic development, including those related to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. The power to make laws entrusting the panchayat with implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice is not limited to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule, but is inclusive of those matters. Article 243-G of the Constitution is an enabling provision as it allows State Legislatures to make laws devolving powers and responsibilities to Panchayats for their functioning as self-governments. In U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “37....Art.243G is an enabling provision. Art.243G enables the Panchayats to function as institutions of self government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Panchayats, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to the implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule. The enabling provisions are further subject to the conditions as may be specified. Therefore, it is for the State Legislature to consider legal conditions and make the law accordingly. The devolution of exercise would also be open to the State to eliminate or modify.” Besides, Article 38 envisages social welfare by securing and promoting social, political and economic justice, and 'social welfare', including welfare of the handicapped and mentally retarded is a matter listed in Entry 26 under the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution. Article 243-G is an enabling Constitutional provision for the State to make laws entrusting Panchayats with implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice, thereby endowing them with the powers and authority to function as institutions of self-government and Exts. P11, P11 (A) and P11(B) are laws made exercising such powers and the contention of the petitioners to the contrary is rejected. 19. P11, P11 (A) and P11(B) are laws made exercising such powers and the contention of the petitioners to the contrary is rejected. 19. Having found that the State has got the powers to issue Ext. P11, Ext. P11 (A) and Ext. P11(B) Rules, the next question to be considered is whether gathering of intelligence information are included in the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution and whether the State Government can delegate essential sovereign functions like gathering of intelligence information to Panchayat Institutions. 20. The source of the State's power to make laws regarding public order is traceable to Entry 1, List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. Maintaining public order is a key sovereign function of the State. The said powers cannot be delegated. I have already found that power of the State to make laws under Article 243-G entrusting the panchayat with implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice is not limited to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule, but is inclusive of those matters. The petitioners do not have a case that the power of the State to make laws regarding public order has been delegated to the Local Self Government Institutions. There cannot be any dispute that gathering of intelligence information and policing are not included in Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution. Then the question is, whether gathering of intelligence information to Panchayat Institutions is part of sovereign functions of State and whether the State Government can delegate the sovereign functions like gathering of intelligence information to Panchayat Institutions. To understand the nature of gathering of intelligence information to Panchayat institutions for sanctioning requests for construction of new places of worship, it will be apposite to refer to Exts. P9 and P10 guidelines, P11 amendment to Ext. P10 Manual, Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules. 21. Clause 3.16 of Ext. P9 'Guidelines on Communal Harmony' for State Governments provides that any construction of religious places shall be made only after the proposals/plans are duly approved by the appropriate authority/statutory body and at the earmarked places. It further provides that cases of construction of unauthorized religious places should be dealt with severely under the existing laws and that negligence on the part of the District Administration in implementing this direction should be seriously viewed and guilty dealt with. The 'introduction' to Ext. It further provides that cases of construction of unauthorized religious places should be dealt with severely under the existing laws and that negligence on the part of the District Administration in implementing this direction should be seriously viewed and guilty dealt with. The 'introduction' to Ext. P9 Guidelines on Communal Harmony provides that maintenance of communal harmony, and the prevention/avoidance of communal disturbances/riots and, in the event of any such disturbances occurring, action to control the same and measures to provide protection and relief to the affected persons, is the prime responsibility of the State Governments. In the letter of the Home Secretary, Government of India, addressed to Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territories while forwarding Ext. P9, it is stated that the Guidelines are only illustrative, and there will always be scope for further initiatives, creative interventions and measures. Ext. P10 'Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony' provides that any construction of religious place should be made only with prior approval of the District Authorities and at the earmarked place and that cases of construction of unauthorized religious places should be dealt with severely under existing laws. Negligence on the part of the District Administration in implementing the direction should be seriously viewed and the guilty dealt with. In Ext. P10, under the head 'objectives', it is provided that it is imperative on the part of the State to evolve guidelines to be adopted by the District administration to equip themselves to deal with communal violence firmly and at the same time to promote communal harmony for peaceful coexistence to bring about unity even in diversity. Rule 7(8A) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 reads as follows: “7(8A). In the case of construction of new building or reconstruction for religious purpose or worship, prior approval or clearance or permission or concurrence, as the case may be, of the District Collector concerned, shall be obtained and the conditions stipulated in the 'Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Communal Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony' which is in force be complied with. Applications for renovations without involving additional built-up area or structural alterations of existing buildings for religious purpose or places of worship may be considered by the Secretary after informing the District Collector in the Form as provided in Appendix-N, duly filled in by the applicant and verified by the Secretary. However, the permit shall be issued only after the receipt of the concurrence of the District Collector.” The Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 was superseded by the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 with effect from 08.11.2019. Under the 2019 Rules, the Secretary of the Local Body is duty bound to obtain, if not produced by the applicant, a written consent/ concurrence /NOC from the District Collector before issuing the permit for the proposed building/places for religious purpose or worship. As per Ext. P11 amendment dated 14.02.2021 brought out to Ext. P10 Manual of Guidelines, for the construction of religious place, it is provided that instead of prior approval from the District Collector, prior approval from the Local Self Government Institution would be sufficient. By Ext. P11(A) Kerala Panchayat Building (Amendment) Rules, 2021, the requirement for the Secretary or the applicant to obtain NOC from the District Collector before applying for permit for construction of religious purpose or worship is taken away and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 as amended by Ext. P11(A) provides that the Secretary shall obtain, if not produced by the applicant, a written consent/ concurrence /NOC from the Panchayat before issuing the permit for proposed buildings/places for religious purpose or worship. 22. The amendment that has been brought out to Ext. P10 Manual of Guidelines for the construction of religious place/place of worship by Ext. P11 is that, instead of prior approval/clearance from the District Collector, prior approval/clearance from the Local Self Government Institution would be sufficient. The amendment that has been brought out by Ext. P11(A) to the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 is that the Secretary shall obtain, if not produced by the applicant, a written consent/ concurrence /NOC from the 'Panchayat' before issuing the permit for proposed buildings/ places for religious purpose or worship. Whether, Exts. P11, P11(A) and P11(B) Amendments amount to delegation of sovereign functions like maintenance of public order or gathering of intelligence information by the State to Local Self Government Institutions? 23. It is pertinent to note that, by Ext. P11 amendment, only paragraph 23 of Ext. Whether, Exts. P11, P11(A) and P11(B) Amendments amount to delegation of sovereign functions like maintenance of public order or gathering of intelligence information by the State to Local Self Government Institutions? 23. It is pertinent to note that, by Ext. P11 amendment, only paragraph 23 of Ext. P10 Manual was amended providing that instead of prior approval from the District Collector, prior approval from the Local Self Government Institution would be sufficient. There are no modifications to any other paragraphs in Ext. P10 Manual. In this context, it will be relevant to refer to paragraphs 13, 31 and 48 of Ext. P10 Manual which read as under: “13. The Police, the local intelligence and the local bodies best know the elements, who have the capacity to create possible communal rifts, directly or indirectly. All religious and communal problems usually start with very minor incidents between the members of two religions, caste, community or ethnic groups, which attain a major dimension beyond control resulting in loss of life and property and worsening the law and order situation. It is the responsibility of the district administration to identify such incidents and collect intelligence and report the matter immediately to the authority concerned for initiating immediate legal action. Therefore an intelligence unit specially trained in the matter should function in every District, for the purpose, under the charge of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. All details of these persons should be readily available in all police stations and the Police District Headquarters. Whenever a festival/religious procession, etc. is about to occur, the District Administration should take timely advance action to immobilize these elements through preventive arrests........” xxx xxx xxx “H. Administrative measures. 31. Communally sensitive places should be identified in the riot-prone areas for making necessary administrative arrangements. Man power requirements for these areas should be realistically assessed. It should be ensured that all vacancies are filled up and manned. Police stations/Posts should be set-up in all sensitive/trouble prone areas. These administrative measures should be constantly reviewed.” xxx xxx xxx “48. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police will be responsible for maintaining communal harmony in the District.” (underlining supplied) Ext. It should be ensured that all vacancies are filled up and manned. Police stations/Posts should be set-up in all sensitive/trouble prone areas. These administrative measures should be constantly reviewed.” xxx xxx xxx “48. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police will be responsible for maintaining communal harmony in the District.” (underlining supplied) Ext. P10 Manual of Guidelines speaks about formation of intelligence wing to deal with communal violence, review of intelligence by the District Magistrate at the District level, collection of intelligence information by district administration and reporting the matter to concerned authorities, gathering and sharing of intelligence by the police etc. These guidelines are not modified and the only modification is at paragraph 23, by providing for prior approval/clearance of the Local Self Government Institution instead of prior approval from the District Collector, for construction of religious place/new construction of a place of worship. Even after Ext. P11 amendment to Ext. P10 Manual, it is the responsibility of the district administration to identify religious and communal problems and collect intelligence and report the matter to the authority concerned for initiating immediate legal action. Ext. P11 G.O, Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules do not take away the right of the District Administration to maintain law and order or to assess the law and order situation. Section 235A (2) (b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 provides that no site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship, if the construction thereon will wound the religious feelings of any class or persons. Necessarily, the Local Self Government Institutions, before issuing permission for construction of a building intended for public worship shall ensure that any religious activity centered around the proposed site would precipitate communal tension or law and order situation and have to obtain inputs from the law enforcing agencies to assess the law and order situation. Based on such inputs, the Local Self Government Institutions shall consider the request for permission for construction of building intended for public worship. The gathering of intelligence information to Panchayat institutions for sanctioning requests for construction of new places of worship has to be done by the same agencies as mentioned in Ext. P10 Manual as no guidelines other than paragraph 23 in Ext. P10 have been modified. The gathering of intelligence information to Panchayat institutions for sanctioning requests for construction of new places of worship has to be done by the same agencies as mentioned in Ext. P10 Manual as no guidelines other than paragraph 23 in Ext. P10 have been modified. Gathering of intelligence information as regards communal tension or law and order situation and disseminating the same to the authority concerned including Local Self Government Institutions are still the responsibility of the police and the District Administration. Ext. P11 or Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules will not have the effect of delegating these powers of the State and the District Administration to Local Self Government Institutions. Other than to sanction construction or renovation of buildings for religious worship, Ext. P11 or Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules do not give any power to Local Self Government Institutions either for the maintenance of public order and tranquility or gathering of intelligence information or policing. By Ext. P11 or Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) Amendment Rules there is no delegation of any sovereign functions like gathering of intelligence information to Panchayat Institutions. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that, by Ext. P11, Exts. P11(A) and P11(B), the State Government have delegated the essential sovereign function like gathering of intelligence information to the Panchayat institutions is without any basis and is rejected. 24. The objective of the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992 and the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 are to shift power from the Central and State Governments to the local self-government bodies at the grass root level. It reaffirms the Directive Principles of State Policy as envisaged in Article 40. As per Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, it is for the State to enact legislation with regard to powers of Local Governments for the purpose of local self-government or village administration. On coming into force of the Seventy-third and Seventy-fourth Constitutional amendments, the States were required to take steps to organise Village Panchayats and to amend the laws relating to Panchayats in line with the Constitutional amendments. The State of Kerala, instead of making amendments to the then existing Kerala Panchayat Act, enacted a new Panchayat Act viz., the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, incorporating the provisions in accordance with the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992. The State of Kerala, instead of making amendments to the then existing Kerala Panchayat Act, enacted a new Panchayat Act viz., the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, incorporating the provisions in accordance with the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992. Likewise, the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 was enacted in line with the provisions of the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992. 25. The Preamble to the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 reads as follows:- “Preamble -Whereas it is expedient to replace the present enactments relating to Panchayats and district councils by a comprehensive enactment to establish a three-tier Panchayat Raj system in the State in line with the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992, for securing a great measure of participation of the people in planned development and in local Governmental affairs, by constituting Village, Block and District Panchayats; And endow such Panchayats with such powers and authority to enable them to function as institutions of self-Government. And entrusting such Panchayats the preparation of plans and implementation of schemes for economic development and social justice including the implementation of schemes in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution.” The Constitutional as well as the Statutory objective is for securing greater participation of the people in the local Governmental affairs. It is within the purview of the State Government to make laws for endowing the panchayats with powers and authority to function as institutions of self-government. Ext. P11, Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) which provide the applicant to obtain NOC from the Local Self Government Institutions before applying for permit for constructing buildings/places for religious purpose or worship will certainly result in greater participation of the people in the process of making decision whether or not to permit construction of proposed buildings/places for religious purposes. Ext. P11, Exts. P11(A) and P11(B) are also in consonance to the Constitutional objectives. When powers have been conferred on the State Legislatures to make laws devolving powers and responsibilities to Panchayats for their functioning as self-governments and when Section 235A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 provides for power to the Government to make rules for the regulation or restriction of the use of sites for the construction of buildings and for the regulation and restriction of building construction, there is nothing wrong in making Exts. P11(A) Rules requiring written consent/ concurrence /NOC from the 'Panchayat' for permit for proposed buildings/ places for religious purpose or worship. The existence of all religions side by side and communal harmony have been the matter of strength in the State. There is no reason to apprehend that the communal harmony would be sabotaged by the impugned amendments. I do not find any reason to interfere with Exts. P8, P11, P11(A) and P11(B). The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.