IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 32083 of 2008(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAJESH, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.CHINNAPPAN, BUSINESS, OZHANTHURUTHU, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.MATHEW ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SECRETARY, ELANKUNNAPUZHA PANCHAYATH MALIPURAM,.KOCHI TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. C.I.OF POLICE, NARAKAL POLICE STATION NARAKKAL, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THAMPI, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.SAHADEVAN, MANNALLY HOUSE, OZHANTHURUTHU, KOCHI TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. * ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 24 IMPLEADED R4: SIMON, MUVESSERY HOUSE, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R5: MANSOOR, VELUPARAMBIL, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R6: PADMASKHI, THEKKETHARA, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R7: JOHN GEORGE, AREEPARAMBIL, MALIPPURAM, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R8: PURUSHAN, NIKATHITHARA, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R9: RAGHAVAN, KOZHIPULLYTHARA, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R10: A.K. SASI, ANJALAKERI, MALIPPURAM, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R11: NELSON, PARUTHIYEDATHU, PALLICHIRA, VALAPPU, ERNAKULAM. WP(C).No. 32083 of 2008(T) R12: SAJEEVAN, CHERASSERY, ELANKUNNAPUZHA, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R13: SATHYAN, MAKKAPADATHU, CHAPPA KADAPPURAM, MALIPPURAM, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R14: JYOTHISH, CHEERASSERY, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM. R15: OMANA, PALASSERIL, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R16: SUSEELA, KUNNAPALLY, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R17: MALLIKA, KOZHUPPULLYTHARA, VLAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM R18: SARASU, NIKATHITHARA, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R19: BABY, MADATHIPARAMBIL, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R20: VALLY, PULLUKATTUTHARA, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R21: RAMANI, THOTTUNKATHARA, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R22: HEMALATHA, ELAYEDATHU, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R23: THILOTHAMA, ELAYEDATHU, VALAPPU, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM. R24: SUNIL, S/O.RAMAN, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, PUTHU VYPE (P.O.) * ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 24 ARE IMPLEDED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/01/2009 IN I.A.15943/2008. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N. SUDHA DEVI R3 BY ADV. MR.BIMAL PRASAD ADDL. R4 TO 24 BY ADV. MR.RAJAN VELLOTH MR.SAIJO HASSAN MR.I.A.S.SABU MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32083 of 2008(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 07/04/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 25/07/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24/07/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15/04/2008 OF 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PERMISSION LETTER DATED 24/04/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21/05/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/10/2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30/10/2006 AS TO THE FISH MARKET CERTIFIED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(c): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01/11/2006. EXT.R4(d): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDNT DATED 17/11/2006. EXT.R4(e): COPY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CARD AND PASSBOOK OF 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(f): COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE MARKET CONDUCTGED BY THESE RESPONDENTS IN BUILDING SPACE NO.IX/269/A. EXT.R4(g): COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE MARKET IN BUILDING NO.VI/229G. EXT.R4(h): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11/12/2008 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/06/2008. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/06/2008 MADE TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(c): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09/12/2008 MADE IN THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(d): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09/12/2008 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(e): COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10/12/2008 MADE TO 1ST RESPONDENT. WP(C).No. 32083 of 2008(T) EXT.R3(f): COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11/12/2008 MADE TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(g): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS RELATING TO PRESENT ILLEGAL FISH VENDING IN THE SHOPPING COMPLEX. EXT.R3(h): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/01/2009. EXT.R3(i): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF BUILDING BEARING NO.VI/229G. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32083 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent, who is a licensee from the 1st respondent panchayat for conducting a private fish market. Ext.P2 is the licence granted by the panchayat in this behalf for the period ending 31.03.2008, which according to the 3rd respondent, has been renewed for subsequent period as well. 2. It seems that originally, the private fish market was licensed to operate in the premises belonging to the 3rd respondent numbered IX/269A. According to the 3rd respondent, on complaints received from others regarding such premises being unsuitable and inadequate, he applied for shifting the same to another building bearing No.VI/229. Permission was granted vide Ext.P5 dated 24.4.2008 and by Ext.P6, the 3rd respondent was asked to stop the conduct of the private market in the premises bearing No.IX/269A. This writ W.P.(C).No.32083 of 2008 :: 2 :: petition has been filed by the petitioner, who contends that he has entered into an agreement with the 3rd respondent, for the conduct of the private market, praying for a direction to the 1st respondent panchayat to implement Ext.P6 with the assistance of the 2nd respondent. 3. The panchayat has not filed a counter affidavit. The persons, who are conducting trading in fish in the building, which was licensed in favour of the 3rd respondent, have got themselves impleaded in the writ petition as additional respondents 4 to 23. They have filed a counter affidavit as well. According to them, they are paying Rs.50/- each per day to the 3rd respondent for the conduct of the fish market. The premises to which the 3rd respondent has sought for shifting is totally insufficient. The petitioner's intention is to smoke out the additional respondents, it is contended. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Mathew Abraham, learned counsel for the panchayat Mr.Abdul Rasheed, Mr.K.P.Dandapani, who appeared along with W.P.(C).No.32083 of 2008 :: 3 :: Mr.Nagaraj Narayanan for the additional respondents and Mr.Bimal Prasad, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 5. It is difficult to appreciate the institution of the writ petition, which if at all, ought to have been filed by the 3rd respondent. It is the 3rd respondent who is the licensee. Ext.P1 agreement is seen to be executed between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The panchayat is not a party to the said agreement. The panchayat does not seem to have knowledge about the arrangement between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent nor does the rule contemplate a transfer of the licence to conduct a private market. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable, at the instance of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the licence in his favour has been renewed and he has been directed to shift his private market to his own premises bearing No.VI/229. Learned counsel for the additional respondents submits that they are aggrieved by the same. According to the counsel for the panchayat, a private market can now function W.P.(C).No.32083 of 2008 :: 4 :: only in the premises bearing No.VI/229 and not in the building No.IX/269A. 7. It is up to the panchayat to enforce its lawful directions. They are at liberty to do so. If the additional respondents are aggrieved by the shifting of the private market to the premises bearing No.VI/229, they are at liberty to challenge the same before the appellate tribunal. If they do so within six weeks from today, such appeal shall be considered by the appellate tribunal, in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//