JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. W.P.(C) No.29169/2024 has been filed by the petitioner, who is constructing a plywood factory in his property. The petitioner seeks to command the police to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner, his employees and vehicles coming to the petitioner's factory premises for carrying the construction work as per Ext.P1 Building Permit without any hindrance or obstructions from respondents 4 and 5 and their men. 2. W.P.(C) No.32716/2024 has been filed by the said respondents 4 and 5 seeking the following reliefs: (i) To strike down Section 191 (4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as unjust, illegal and unconstitutional; (ii) To declare that Section 191 (4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is not to be invoked for the purpose of constructing of the plywood factory owned by the 4 th respondent as mentioned in Ext.P1 in Kareepra Grama Panchayat; (iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing ExtP16 GO a3 unjust, illegal and arbitrary; Alternatively:- (iv) To declare that Section 191 (4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act does not empower the Government to pass unreasoned orders, without hearing the affected persons including the Panchayat; (v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from constructing and operating the plywood factory owned by the 4 th respondent as mentioned in Ext.P1 in Kareepra Grama Panchayat; (vi) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for under the facts and circumstances of the case; (vii) To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents. (viii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P18 and P19 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary; (ix) To strike down Section 2 of the Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation (No.2) Act, 2018 (Ext.P20) to the extent it does not contemplate or provide for a refusal by the Panchayat to grant or issue permission for the construction of a factory, workshop or workplace; (x) To strike down S. 233(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act as unconstitutional, to the extent to which it does not allow the Panchayat to refuse license for any factory, workshop, workplace etc. and S.233(4) to the extent to which it does not specify for a contingency of refusal of license by the Village Panchayat. and S.233(4) to the extent to which it does not specify for a contingency of refusal of license by the Village Panchayat. (xi) To strike down clause 8(c) of Ext.P21 to the extent it does not contemplate or provide for a refusal by the Panchayat to grant or issue permission for the construction of a factory, workshop or workplace; (xii) To strike down Rule 12(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship activities and other services) Rules, 1996 to the extent it does not contemplate or provide for a refusal by the Panchayat to grant or issue permission for the construction of a factory, workshop or workplace. 3. The parties and exhibits are referred to in this judgment as they are described and marked in W.P.(C) No.29169/2024, for clarity. As the eligibility of the petitioner to get police protection would depend upon the challenges made by respondents 4 and 5 in W.P.(C) No.32716/2024, the said writ petition is firstly dealt with. 4. Respondents 4 and 5 state that they are residents of Kareepra Grama Panchayat and are aggrieved by the construction of a plywood factory in the Panchayat by the petitioner. The petitioner proposed to construct the plywood factory in the beginning of 2024 and Ext.P1 Building Permit was issued by the Panchayat. The Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises has issued Ext.P2 Udyam registration and the Pollution Control Board has issued Ext.P3 Consent to Establish. 5. The respondents filed a Suit in the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara as OS No.305/2024 seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against starting the plywood factory. The Munsiff's Court initially passed Ext.P5 interim injunction order dated 12.07.2024. Ext.P6 report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the said OS would show that the petitioner had suppressed existence of a water stream and certain other details in the site plan, while obtaining licences. Coming to know of the facts, the Panchayat issued Ext.P7 Stop Memo dated 15.07.2024. 6. When the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.27439/2024 challenging Ext.P7 Stop Memo, the Panchayat Secretary recalled the Stop Memo as per Ext.P9 order dated 06.08.2024. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P. (C) No.29169/2024 seeking police protection to carry on the construction. This Court granted Ext.P10 interim order dated 06.09.2024. 7. Respondents 4 and 5 stated that there is a farm pond constructed with the assistance of the Panchayat near the proposed plywood factory. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P. (C) No.29169/2024 seeking police protection to carry on the construction. This Court granted Ext.P10 interim order dated 06.09.2024. 7. Respondents 4 and 5 stated that there is a farm pond constructed with the assistance of the Panchayat near the proposed plywood factory. The pond is used to irrigate the surrounding paddy fields which is the livelihood of several nearby inhabitants. Establishment of plywood factory would pollute the farm pond denying drinking water to the locals and destroying the crops. 8. There is a stream of water flowing from the western side of the factory land which was not shown in the site plan. There is a water pump house and a well constructed under a Government project is situated alongside the water pump house. The well is hardly 3 metres away from the factory premises. Supply pipelines are passing through the 3 metre wide road leading to the proposed plywood factory. 9. Representations against the plywood factory were submitted to the Grama Panchayat and the District Collector. The Panchayat Committee, as per Ext.P14 proceedings, decided to revoke Building Permit granted to the petitioner in view of the harmful effects caused to the environment and health hazards to the nearby residents. Ext.P14 superseded the Building Permit issued to the petitioner. 10. On 22.08.2024, as per Ext.P16, the Government issued an order staying the resolutions of the Panchayat, relying on Section 191 (4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The respondents submit that when the Government invokes Section 191 (4), they are bound to hear the Panchayat Members. The Members were not heard when Ext.P16 was issued. 11. Pursuant to the judgment in W.A. Nos.154/2025 and 164/2025, the issue was referred to the Local Self Government Tribunal. The Tribunal held that resolutions issued by the Panchayat cancelling the Building Permit given to the petitioner are illegal. Consequently, the Government issued Ext.P19 GO dated 06.03.2025 revoking Exts.P14 and P15 orders issued by the Panchayat. Respondents 4 and 5 are challenging Exts.P16, P18 and P19 Government Orders. 12. Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act empowers the Government to stay any resolutions passed by the Panchayats by way of interim measure, without issuing any notice to the Panchayat. Respondents 4 and 5 are challenging Exts.P16, P18 and P19 Government Orders. 12. Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act empowers the Government to stay any resolutions passed by the Panchayats by way of interim measure, without issuing any notice to the Panchayat. Section 191 is illegal and unconstitutional to the extent it does not provide for issuance of any notice to the Panchayat before granting interim stay orders. 13. The counsel further submitted that there are certain basic requirements enumerated in sub-clause (a) to sub-clause (d) of Section 191 which should exist to invoke Section 191 . None of these grounds existed in the present case. The resolution of the Panchayat ought to have been left to be challenged by the aggrieved parties. In this case, the Secretary of the Panchayat invoked Section 191 arbitrarily. When Section 276 (5)(b) provided for appeal, the Secretary was not justified in invoking Section 191 . 14. Ext.P16 order of the Government is bad in law and therefore Ext.P19 Government Order should go. The very reference of the issue to the Government and to the Tribunal is vitiated. Assuming that the statutory provision Section 191 is not unconstitutional, even then the exercise of power of reference by the Secretary is vitiated, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. Proviso to Section 182 (iii) gives a complete scheme laying down the procedure to exercise the power under Section 191 . The procedure contemplates placing of the objection of the Secretary to the Panchayat before the Panchayat Committee. In the present case, the Secretary failed to place the matter before the Council. 16. The counsel for respondents 4 and 5 further submitted that the amended Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act does not give a discretion to the Panchayats to refuse licence. Section 233 as it stands amended is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Full Bench judgment of this Court in Pavithran v. State of Kerala, 2009 (4) KLT 20 (FB) will not be of any help to the petitioner when challenge is made to Section 233, because there was no challenge to Section 233 in the case decided by the Full Bench. If Section 233 is sustained, the Local Self Government Institutions will be forced to issue licences to industries even if such industries are highly pollutant. If Section 233 is sustained, the Local Self Government Institutions will be forced to issue licences to industries even if such industries are highly pollutant. Under Sections 166 and 233(3), the Panchayats have a duty to abate pollution. Section 233 is not consistent with Section 166 and Section 233(3). 17. The Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation Act, 2018 also cannot stand the scrutiny of law as the said Act, 2018 has amended so many provisions of various Acts by one stroke. Respondents 4 and 5 therefore challenged the provisions of the Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation Act to the extent it amends the Panchayat Raj Act. Ext.P16 order of the Government is therefore unjust, illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside, urged the counsel for the petitioner. 18. The petitioner opposed W.P.(C) No.32716/2024 filing counter affidavit. Permission was granted to the petitioner to construct and run a plywood factory. Respondents 4 and 5 filed OS No.305/2024 in the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara to get a prohibitory order to prevent the petitioner from continuing construction of factory. The Munsiff made it clear that the petitioner can continue with the construction if he has all valid required licences. 19. The plywood factory is situated in a vast extent of property having 3 Acres and 45 Cents of land. The factory building has been given a setback of 35 metres on the front, 51.49 metres on rear side and 27.80 metres and 25 metres on the two sides of the building. Though the Village Officer issued a stop memo, the same was recalled. 20. The petitioner contended that the Panchayat Committee cannot take a view contrary to that of other statutory authorities. The Single Window Clearance Board headed by the District Collector considered the joint inspection report in respect of the inspection conducted in the presence of General Manager, DIC, District Town Planner, Deputy Director of Panchayat, Ecologist under Water Department and the Pollution Control Board and the Committee found that all precautions are taken by the petitioner for preventing any pollution. The Single Window Clearance Board, considering the afore report, found that all the precautions are taken by the petitioner for preventing pollution. 21. The petitioner refuted the allegation that the Engineer, who sanctioned the grant of Building Permit, has done so without carrying field inspection. The Single Window Clearance Board, considering the afore report, found that all the precautions are taken by the petitioner for preventing pollution. 21. The petitioner refuted the allegation that the Engineer, who sanctioned the grant of Building Permit, has done so without carrying field inspection. Under Section 191 (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the only mandate before cancelling or amending the resolution or decision is that the Government may refer the matter for consideration either to the Ombudsman or to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Accordingly, the Government referred the matter for consideration of the Tribunal. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and is only to be dismissed. 22. The 2 nd respondent-Secretary to Government (in W.P.(C) No.32716/2024) also filed a counter affidavit. The 2 nd respondent submitted that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat reported that application for Building Permit was accompanied with NOC from the Pollution Control Board, other documents and the building plan. The Assistant Engineer, LSGD reported that the plan was as per KPBR, 2019. The permit was issued as per site inspection. Therefore, it is illegal to cancel the permit given to the petitioner. The Secretary also brought to the notice of the Panchayat Committee the clearance given by the District Single Window Clearance Board. It was on the basis of the afore facts that it was decided to stay the resolution passed by the Kareepra Grama Panchayat and to refer the matter to the Tribunal for LSGI. The Tribunal will give its report after notice to the Panchayat and therefore there is no violation of the principles of natural justice, urged the 2 nd respondent. 23. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and the learned counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat. 24. Respondents 4 and 5 have already filed a suit in the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara as OS No.305/2024. The Munsiff's Court initially passed Ext.P5 interim injunction order, which was subsequently withdrawn/modified. Respondents 4 and 5 argued that Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 empowers the Government to pass interim order staying the operation of resolutions passed by the Panchayats without notice to the Panchayats. The Panchayats are having first hand information regarding the facts leading to their decisions. Respondents 4 and 5 argued that Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 empowers the Government to pass interim order staying the operation of resolutions passed by the Panchayats without notice to the Panchayats. The Panchayats are having first hand information regarding the facts leading to their decisions. Therefore, the Government shall not stay the operations of such resolutions passed by the Panchayats without notice to the Panchayats. The power granted to the Government to grant stay orders in the manner provided in Section 191 is arbitrary and illegal to that extent. 25. Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 provides for power of the Government of cancellation and suspension of resolutions. Section 191 reads as follows: 191. Power of cancellation and suspension of resolutions etc. - (1) Government may either suo moto or, on a reference by President, Secretary or a member, or on a petition received from a citizen, cancel or vary a resolution passed or a decision taken by the Panchayat if in their opinion such decision or resolution- (a) is not legally passed or taken; or (b) is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or any other law or its abuse; or (c) is likely to endanger human life, health public safety, communal harmony or may lead to riot or quarrel; or (d) is in violation of the directions or provisions of grant issued by Government in the matter of implementing the plans, schemes or programmes. (2) Before cancelling or amending a resolution or decision as per sub-section (1), the Government may refer the matter for consideration either of the ombudsman constituted under section 271 G or the tribunal constituted under section 271S and the ombudsman or the tribunal, as the case may be; after giving the panchayat an opportunity of being head, send a report to the Government with its conclusions and the Government may, on its basis cancel, amend or confirm the resolution or decision. (3) If another remedy is available to the petitioner through the tribunal under section 276, the Government shall not consider any petition for cancelling or amending any resolution or decision of the Panchayat. (3) If another remedy is available to the petitioner through the tribunal under section 276, the Government shall not consider any petition for cancelling or amending any resolution or decision of the Panchayat. (4) If Government consider that a resolution or decision of the Panchayat has to be cancelled or amended as per sub-section (1) it may suspend such resolution or decision temporarily and may direct the panchayat to defer its implementation till the final disposal after the completion of the procedure under sub-section (2). Section 191 (2) provides that before cancelling or amending a resolution or decision as per sub-section (1), the Government may refer the matter for consideration either of the Ombudsman or the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Ombudsman or the Tribunal after giving the Panchayat an opportunity of being heard, sent a report to the Government with its conclusion and the Government may, on its basis, cancel, amend or confirm the resolution or decision. As per sub-section (4) of Section 191 , if Government considers that a resolution or decision of the Panchayat has to be cancelled or amended, it may suspend such resolution or decision temporarily and may direct the Panchayat to defer its implementation till the final disposal after the completion of the procedure under sub-section (2). 26. Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act therefore contemplates an opportunity of hearing to be granted to the Panchayat, by the Ombudsman or Tribunal, as the case may be, before a report is sent to the Government. If after considering such report, which is prepared complying with the principles of natural justice after hearing the Panchayat concerned, then no further opportunity of hearing need be given to the Panchayat before the Government takes a decision. On the other hand, if the Government takes a decision opposed to or contrary to the report given by the Ombudsman or Tribunal, then the Government will have a duty to hear the Panchayat to defer from the report of the Ombudsman/Tribunal while taking final decision. 27. The contention of respondents 4 and 5 is that Section 191 is arbitrary to the extent it denies opportunity of hearing to the Panchayats while suspending the resolution or decision temporarily under sub-section (4) of Section 191 . 27. The contention of respondents 4 and 5 is that Section 191 is arbitrary to the extent it denies opportunity of hearing to the Panchayats while suspending the resolution or decision temporarily under sub-section (4) of Section 191 . The Government will exercise that power of suspension of resolution or decision on an interim basis, only when the Government considers prima facie that a resolution or decision of the Panchayat has to be cancelled or amended. Even then, before taking a final decision, the Panchayats will be getting an opportunity of hearing by the Ombudsman or Tribunal. The Act, 1994 thus gives power to the Government to suspend a resolution passed or decision taken by the Panchayat in exceptional cases. Even in such exceptional cases, the Panchayats will be getting an opportunity of hearing before any final decision is taken. It is to be noted that the powers of the Panchayats are confined to those provided under Sections 166 and 167 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and any other power or function delegated to the Panchayats by the Government. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the powers to pass interim orders granted to the Government under Section 191 (4). 28. The petitioner would contend that the proviso to Section 182 (iii) gives a complete Scheme laying down the procedure to exercise the power under Section 191 . The procedure contemplates placing of the objection of the Secretary to the Panchayat before the Panchayat Committee. The Secretary has failed to place the matter before the Council, contends the petitioner. 29. Section 192 provides for the powers and functions of the Secretary of a Panchayat. Section 182 (iii) mandates that the Secretary as Executive Officer of the Panchayat shall carry into effect resolutions of the Panchayat, provided that where the Secretary is of the opinion that any resolution passed by the Panchayat has not been legally passed or is in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or any other Act or is likely to endanger human life, health or public safety, if implemented, he shall request in writing to the Panchayat to review the resolution and express his views at the time of its review by the Panchayat. If the Panchayat upholds its previous decision, the matter shall be referred to the Government. 30. If the Panchayat upholds its previous decision, the matter shall be referred to the Government. 30. Ext.P14 minutes of the meeting of the Panchayat Committee would indicate that when the Panchayat decided to cancel the building permit granted to the petitioner, the Secretary to the Panchayat has given his opinion disagreeing with the resolution. It is evident from Ext.P14 that the Secretary has given his opinion against the resolution as contemplated under proviso to Section 182 (iii). The arguments of respondents 4 and 5 based on Section 182 are therefore unsustainable. 31. The further argument is that Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act does not give a discretion to the Panchayats to refuse licence and hence it is arbitrary and unconstitutional. Respondents 4 and 5 would urge that in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Pavithran (supra), there was no challenge to Section 233. If Section 233 is sustained, the Panchayats will be forced to issue licences to industries even if such industries are highly polluted. Respondents 4 and 5 would urge that under Sections 166 and 233(3), the Panchayats have a duty to abate pollution. 32. Section 233 provides that no persons shall without the permission of the Village Panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission, construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace using steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power or install any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as aforesaid. 33. Sub-section (3) to Section 233 mandates that the Secretary or authorised officer, on receipt of application for permission, enquire and report to the Panchayat whether the establishment of factory, workshop or workplace or other installation, is objectionable by reason of density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility to cause nuisance or pollution and the Panchayat after considering the reports may as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 30 days grant permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions, as it thinks fit to impose. 34. It is clear from Section 233(3) that the Panchayat has no power to deny permission for construction of factory or for installation of machinery. Based on the reports, the Panchayat, however, can grant permission subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose. 34. It is clear from Section 233(3) that the Panchayat has no power to deny permission for construction of factory or for installation of machinery. Based on the reports, the Panchayat, however, can grant permission subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose. It is to be kept in mind that any such factory/installation would require consent/clearance from the statutory Pollution Control Board authorities if those machinery or installations are likely to result in any kind of pollution including sound pollution. Pollution Control Boards being experts in the field of air, sound and water pollution, their decision should be given due weightage. The legislature therefore felt that the Panchayats' power should be limited to imposing conditions on the basis of which permission can be granted for construction of factories and installation of machinery. The challenge made by respondents 4 and 5 on Section 233 is therefore unsustainable. 35. Respondents 4 and 5 challenge the Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation Act, 2018 contending that the said Act has amended many provisions of various Acts by one stroke. The Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation Act, 2018 has been enacted to give effect to certain proposals of the Government to avoid delay in granting various licences, permissions, approvals and clearances required various enactments and to provide for incidental matters. 36. The Act, 2018 amends certain provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978, etc. The Act, 2018 has been made with a laudable object. The amendments so made do not directly affect respondents 4 and 5. In the circumstances, challenge to the Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation Act, 2018 by respondents 4 and 5 is only to be rejected. 37. On the basis of the reference order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the Government has issued GO dated 06.03.2025 revoking Exts.P14 and P15 orders issued by the Panchayat. I do not find any illegality in Exts.P16, P18 or P19 orders passed by the Government or the Tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to construct and run his factory as long as the petitioner holds valid licences and permits. W.P.(C) No.32716/2024 is therefore dismissed. I do not find any illegality in Exts.P16, P18 or P19 orders passed by the Government or the Tribunal. The petitioner is entitled to construct and run his factory as long as the petitioner holds valid licences and permits. W.P.(C) No.32716/2024 is therefore dismissed. W.P.(C) No.29169/2024 is disposed of commanding respondents 2 and 3 therein to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and his employees as well as the vehicles coming to the petitioner's factory premises for carrying out the construction work as per Ext.P1 building permit, without any hindrance or obstructions from respondents 4 and 5 and their men and agents.