IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34769 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BIJI MATHEW, AGED 43, S/O.V.P.PHILIPOSE, VALIYAKALAYIL HOUSE, KARTHAVYAM MURI, MALLAPUZHASSERRY VILLAGE, REP. BY POWER-OF-ATTORNEY HOLDER V.P.PHILIPOSE, AGED 84, S/O.PHILIPOSE, VALIYAKALAYIL HOUSE, KARTHAVYAM MURI, MALLAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MALLAPUZHASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALLAPUZHASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PUNNAKADU P.O., KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. P.A.GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 50, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUNNACKADU P.O., KARTHAVYAM MURI, MALLAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. VALSA GEORGE, AGED 43, W/O.P.A.GEORGE, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUNNACKADU P.O., KARTHAVYAM MURI, MALLAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI FOR R2 & R3 SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.34769 of 2009 (M) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that there is inaction on the part of the 1st respondent Panchayat to take action on Ext.P3. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a building, which was leased out to the 2nd respondent, who in turn has sub-leased it to the 3rd respondent. It is stated that in the premises, the 3rd respondent is running a business in formic acid, crackers and such other things without licence. It is complaining of this alleged illegality of the 3rd respondent that Ext.P3 representation is filed by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3 submits that the 3rd respondent is the daughter of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the entire disputes between the parties are pending consideration of the Civil Court. It is also the case of respondents 2 & 3 that the business carried on by the respondents is only stationery business and that the same is on the basis of a licence WP(C) No.34769/2009 -2- issued by the Panchayat. In the nature of the controversy, I do not think that it is necessary for this Court to enter into the disputed questions of fact. If as a matter of fact, a complaint has been received by the Panchayat, it is up to the Panchayat to conduct necessary enquiry on the allegation, with notice to the affected parties, and pass appropriate orders in that behalf. This the Panchayat shall do with notice to the petitioner, and respondents 2 & 3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg