IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37634 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. DEVASSY.T.A, S/O. ANTONY, THETTAYIL KOLADAN HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU.P.O, THRISSUR. 2. VICTOR V.J, S/O. JOSE, VADAKKETHALA KUTTALAKKARAN HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU.P.O, THRISSUR. 3. V.V. JOHNSON, S/O. VAREED, VADAKKETHALA KUTTALAKKADAN HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU.P.O, THRISSUR. 4. C.L. JOSE, S/O. LONAPPAN, CHIRAYATH ATHANIKKAL HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU.P.O, THRISSUR. 5. CLEETUS.V.J, S/O. JOSE, VADAKKETHALA KUTTALAKKARAN HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU.P.O, THRISSUR. 6. SEBATIAN.V.V, S/O. VAREED, VADAKKETHALA KUTTALAKKARAN HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU.P.O, THRISSUR. 7. PREEJO.A.P, S/O. POULOSE, ARIMPUR VERGAS HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU.P.O, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. MANALUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETRY KANDASSAMKADAVU.P.O, THRISSUR. WPC NO.37634/09 -2- 2. OUSEPH, MOLLEPARAMBIL, SREEKARTHUKULANGARA, KANDASSAMKADAVU.P.O, THRISSUR. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37634 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners' grievance is that despite Exts.P3 to P9 applications made, 1st respondent has not granted them licence for meat stalls. According to the petitioners, the said action of the 1st respondent is for the reason that the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions has passed an order of status quo on a complaint made by the 2nd respondent. It is in these circumstances, with a prayer to compel the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 to P9 applications, the writ petition is filed. 2. Standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent points out that Panchayat does not have a slaughter house and therefore, it was impermissible for the Panchayat to grant licence applied for, in view of the judgment of this Court in Mathew v. Valakom Grama Panchayat (2009(3) KLT 572). Even otherwise, according to the petitioners, the refusal on the part of the Panchayat to grant licence is for the reason that an order of status quo has been passed by the Ombudsman for Local WPC 37634/09 :2 : Self Government Institutions. Instead of rushing to this Court, petitioners ought to have moved the Ombudsman itself for seeking appropriate modifications, if they are otherwise eligible for the same. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed, but however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to move the Ombudsman for appropriate orders. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp