IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22763 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- C.P.IBRAHIM RAWTHER, S/O.PAREED RAWTHER, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, PALLICKACHIRA P.O, PAIPPAD, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. PAIPPAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PAIPPAD, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. SECRETARY, PAIPPAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAIPPAD, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 4. HEALTH SUPERVISOR, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, KARUKACHAL, KOTTAYAM. (IN CHARGE OF PAIPPAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH). 5. K.A.ALIKUNJU, THOPPIL HOUSE, PAIPPAD VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. 6. HUSSAIN, THOPPIL HOUSE, PAIPPAD VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 22763 OF 2008 I =================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he was running a hotel duly licenced by the respondent Panchayat. By Ext.P10, that licence was cancelled and Ext.P11 Stop Memo was issued. Ext.P10 order was challenged before the Panchayat in an appeal filed by the petitioner. During its pendency, the petitioner also filed a writ petition before this court complaining that Ext.P10 will be implemented. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P14 judgment directing disposal of the appeal and that in the meanwhile, to keep in abeyance Ext.P10. 2. Counsel submits that by order dated 26/7/2008, the appeal itself has been rejected and that copy of the order is yet to be served on the petitioner. It is stated that he made an application invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act and that he has been informed that copy will be served on 5/8/08. It is submitted by the petitioner that he wants to avail of the right of revision before the Tribunal and that in the meanwhile, there is every likelihood that the Panchayat might implement Ext.P10 and P11 stop memo issued following Ext.P10 and order closure of WPC 22763/08 :2 : the hotel itself. 3. Since the statute itself provides for a right of revision to the petitioner before the Tribunal, petitioner is entitled to avail of the same. In order to take recourse to the right of revision, he also needs to have a copy of the order. Since copy is yet to be issued, I direct that the Panchayat shall issue a copy of the order dated 26/7/2008 passed by the Panchayat on the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P10. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before 2/8/2008. It is also directed that in the meanwhile, till 10/8/2008, Exts. P10 and P11 shall not be implemented and that in the meanwhile, it is for the petitioner to obtain necessary orders from the Tribunal safeguarding his interest. 4. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Panchayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp