IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 37297 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.S.BASHEER,PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. 2. C.K.HAMZA, CHAYAMPILAKKIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIKKAVU, OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR. 3. P.M.SABU MANI, PAYYAPPAT HOUSE, PALLALAKUNNU, MANNUTHI, THRISSUR. 4. K.L.NAFEESA ISMAIL, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, MANNUTHI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR. 3. M.M.MOHAMMED, MAMMASRAYILLATHU VEEDU, PANANCHAKAM, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1,2 SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R3 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the Order dated 21.11.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2. True copy of the notification published in the Desabhimani daily dated 12.4.2007. Ext.P3. True copy of the notification published in the Desabhikani daily dated 5.6.2007. Ext.P4. True copy of the objections submitted by the petitioners on 6.6.2007 before the 2nd respondent. Ext.P5. True copy of the judgment dated 13.8.2007 in WP(c).NO.24525/2007 Ext.P6. True copy of the agenda of the meeting of 12.11.2009. // true copy // P.S to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.37297 OF 2009(F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Prayer sought in the Writ Petition is to direct respondents 1 and 2 not to grant licence to the 3rd respondent to sell chicken in his shop room(No.10/789-N) at the Ollukkara Market Shopping Complex, Mannuthi, Thirussur. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 is an order allotting room 10/789(N) to the 3rd respondent for the specific purpose of vending dry fish. It is stated that contrary to Ext.P1, by Ext.P6 the Corporation has resolved to permit the 3rd respondent to vend meat also. It is this decision of the Corporation which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. First of all, though in Ext.P1 order of allotment, the purpose of allotment is for vending dry fish, there is no restriction imposed by the Corporation restricting itself from permitting vending of other materials. On the other hand, in Exts.P2 and P3 tender notices issued by the Corporation itself, it is stated that vending of fish or meat will not be permitted, which does not cover the reasons mentioned in Ext.P1. WPC.No.37297 /09 :2 : 3. Therefore, in terms of Ext.P1 the Corporation had the freedom to give permission to the allotees to engage in the business of other materials also. Once such a power is conferred to the Corporation, the corporation is well in its power to permit the allotees to vend other materials also. Therefore writ petition fails an is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/