IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33081 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SHAJAHAN K.A., HILL VIEW, THONNLOOR MURI, KADAKKAD, PANDALAM P.O., ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 501. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PANDALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PANDALAM P.O., ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN- 689 501, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ALEX VARGHESE, GARDEN HOUSE, NJETTOOR MURI, KULANADA P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 503. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 33081 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is running a business in the sale and service of mobile phones within the local limits of Pandalam Grama Panchayat. It appears, the landlord of another building on which the petitioner is a tenant but in which he is not running the business of sale and service of mobile phones filed a complaint before the Hon'ble the Ombudsman for Local Self- Government Institutions alleging that the petitioner does not possess a valid licence to do business in the sale and service of mobile phones. On that complaint, the Hon'ble the Ombudsman passed Ext.P3 order dated 20.9.2010 directing the Secretary of the Pandalam Grama Panchayat to take steps to prevent the petitioner from running the business in the sale and service of mobile phones, if he does not possess a licence issued by the Panchayat. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application dated 19.10.2010 before the Secretary of the Pandalam Grama Panchayat under the provisions of the Kerala WPC No.33081/2010 2 Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though he has applied for a licence and has also paid the requisite fee, the Secretary of the Pandalam Grama Panchayat is not taking action on Ext.P4 application in view of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble the Ombudsman, evidenced by Ext.P3. In my opinion, the apprehension of the petitioner is not well founded. All that the Hon'ble the Ombudsman has directed in Ext.P3 is that if the Panchayat has not issued a licence, the Secretary of the Pandalam Grama Panchayat should take steps to stop the business of the petitioner in the sale and service of mobile phones. That order does not in my opinion stand in the way of the Secretary from considering Ext.P4 application for licence. I am therefore of the opinion that the Secretary of the Pandalam Grama Panchayat should consider Ext.P4 application and take a decision thereon expeditiously. WPC No.33081/2010 3 I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Secretary of Pandalam Grama Panchayat to consider Ext.P4 application and take an appropriate decision thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him. Until then, the direction issued in Ext.P3 shall stand stayed for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of the Pandalam Grama Panchayat to take a decision in the matter expeditiously. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.33081/2010 4 WPC No.33081/2010 5