AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is the continuation of the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner. The matter is related to remission sought by the petitioner towards licence fee on account of COVID-19 situation in the State.
As per Ext.P9 judgment, this Court directed the Panchayat to consider the request for remission in terms of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Granting of Remission To Contractors and Lessees) Rules, 1998. Pursuant to the direction, Ext.P10 was passed. The said order was passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat.
According to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, since the term of the Panchayat Committee was over, the Administrative Committee considered the petitioner's request and rejected the same. The Secretary is the only signatory to the impugned order. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the decision was taken by the Administrative Committee.
The matter involves a policy decision of the Panchayat Committee. As per the aforesaid Rules, the Panchayat Committee has to take a decision. Rule 5(3) of the aforesaid Rules clearly states that the Panchayat Committee shall take a decision within thirty days from the date of receipt of the application. This Court is of the prima facie view that the Administrative Committee in the office cannot take a decision involving the policy of the Panchayat. I am not examining the power of the Administrative Committee in this case. In view of the fact that the new Committee is in office, it is appropriate that the new Committee takes a decision in this matter. To pave way for reconsideration as above, the impugned order is set aside. The new Committee in the office shall take a decision within thirty days. The interim arrangement already made in Ext.P9 judgment will continue. The impugned order is set aside for the appropriate decision by the Panchayat Committee.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.