IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 7201 of 2008 (G) ------------------------------ PETITIONER: ---------- E.BASHEER, S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY, HARIPPATTAZHIKATHU, KUREEPUZHACHERRY, KAVANAD,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 2. THE NEENDAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEENDAKARA P.O., KOLLAM-691 582. 3. SRI. THOMAS BEN, S/O. KUSU BEN, KADAYIL HOUSE, NEENDAKARA MURI, NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.K.V. MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 7201 OF 2008 - G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P2 to P5 and the demand against the petitioner pertaining to the year 2007-08. Petitioner was an auction purchaser of the right to sell meat in a private market, auctioned by the respondent Panchayat. Admittedly, auction was settled in his name and he had entered into an agreement. Default was committed and that also is not in dispute. It was thereafter that the Panchayat again issued Ext. P5 auction notice and it was at that stage the writ petition has been filed. 2. Counsel contends that Ext. P5 is illegal and that the auction settled in his name is also illegal. This argument is raised on the premise that in the absence of a slaughter house the Panchayat could not have conducted the auction, in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules 1996. Counsel for the Panchayat on the other W.P.(C) No. 7201/2008 (G) - 2 - hand points out that all that was auctioned was the right to sell meat sourced from various slaughter houses and in support of this contention learned counsel also refers me to clauses 2 and 16 of Ext. P5 as well. 3. True, unless a slaughter house is licensed in terms of the aforesaid Rules, slaughtering cannot be done in a Panchayat area and this position has been settled by this Court in the judgment in John Mathew v. Vechoochira Grama Panchayat {1999(3) KLT 243}. However, in so far as this case is concerned, I am satisfied that what has been auctioned in favour of the petitioner and again brought for auction by Ext.P5 was the right to sell meat and there is no slaughtering contemplated in this matter. A reading of Ext. P5 shows that a meat vendor in whose favour the contract is settled has to obtain meat slaughtered at licensed slaughter houses. 4. If that be so, in the absence of any slaughtering contemplated in this case, I am not in a position to say that the auction settled in the petitioner's name was illegal or that Ext. P5 is irregular for any reason. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the petitioner for interfering with Ext.P5 and also to exonerate him from W.P.(C) No. 7201/2008 (G) - 3 - his liabilities following the auction that has been settled in his favour for the year 2007-08, are only to be turned down. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has yet another complaint that the auction that is proposed to be held is the premises situated in R.S. No. 365/7 Block No. 22 of Neendakara Village. According to him, this land belongs to the 3rd respondent and if that be so, the Panchayat has no authority to conduct the auction. Counsel for the Panchayat on the other hand submits that the auction was held in respect of a plot of land belonging to the Panchayat and situated in R.S. No. 365/3 of Neendakara Village. This submission is also recorded. If that be so, the contention raised regarding the location of the property also is incorrect. 6. I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-