IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8763 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.C.HASSAN KUTTY, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHAKUZHY, KANJIRAPPALLY.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHIF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE RANNI-ANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.8763 of 2010 (U) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T In the tenders invited by the 1st respondent, according to the petitioner, he was the successful tenderer for a meat shop. The tender was for the period from 01/04/2009 to 31/03/2010. However, on account of the stay obtained by a rival claimant in WP(C) No.12182/2009 filed by him, the petitioner could not conduct the shop for the entire period of 12 months. According to the petitioner, by virtue of Ext.P4 judgment in WP(C) No.12182/2009, he is entitled to get the licence period extended to compensate the loss. It is stated that the Panchayat is now taking steps to conduct auction for the period from 01/04/2010, and therefore, he made Ext.P6 application to the 2nd respondent requesting for extension of the period of his licence. Ext.P6 has not been considered. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 2. A reading of Ext.P4 judgment referred to above gives an impression that the only observation that has been made therein is WP(C) No.8763/2010 -2- that the petitioner can seek restitution by way of remission in the licence fee payable for the period up to 31/03/2010. As against this observation, the petitioner claimed extension of the licence period by filing Ext.P6, which I do not think is permissible, in view of the terms of Ext.P4 judgment. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the claim raised in Ext.P6. However, it is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in moving the Panchayat for remission on the strength of Ext.P4 judgment, in which case, it is entirely upto the Panchayat to consider such claim and pass orders thereon. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg