IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8349 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.BIJU,S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 28 YEARS,POONGODE,PUTHIYANKAM AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. ALATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,ALATHUR.P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SECRETARY,ALATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALATHUR.P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.8349 OF 2010(P) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is occupying shop room No.8 in Alathur Grama Panchayat Shopping Complex, on the basis of Ext.P1, a lease deed. Period of Ext.P1 is to expire on 26.3.2010. Therefore, Panchayat issued Ext.P2 requiring the petitioner to execute a fresh agreement. 2. At that stage, relying on Ext.P3 judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6391/2009 petitioner contends that the relationship between himself and the Panchayat is that of a licenser and licensee and lessee and therefore the deed to be executed has to be a licence deed. He made such a representation producing Ext.P3 and that was replied by Ext.P5. In Ext.P5 Panchayat informed the petitioner that the request made by the petitioner is being examined and that a reply will be given and that in the meanwhile time specified for execution of the agreement is extended till 12th March, 2010. 3. It is on 12tH March 2010, that this writ petition has been filed, praying to quash Ext.P5 and to direct the Panchayat to WPC.No. 8349/2010 :2 : permit the petitioner to review the agreement by construing the same as licence as declared by the Supreme Court in Ext.P3 judgment referred to above. 4. In my view, the writ petition is premature. The declaration sought for arises only when the Panchayat takes final decision on the request made by the petitioner. Going by Ext.P5, it is revealed that the Panchayat has not taken any decision. Therefore, at this stage there is no question of this court declaring the relationship between the petitioner and Panchayat. 5. In so far as the prayer for quashing Ext.P5 is concerned that also is misconceived for the reason in Ext.P5 all that the Panchayat stated is that Ext.P3 judgment is being examined and a reply will be given to the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P5 does not contain any decision adverse to the petitioner to be aggrieved of the same. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 8349/2010 :3 :