IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29786 of 2009(P) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ALBY.K.P.S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 33 YEARS, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, NAYARAMBALAM P.O. BY ADVS.MR.A.X.VARGHESE MR .A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- NJARAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, NJARAKKAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.29786 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT Notice to respondent dispensed with, preserving its right to move for rehearing, if aggrieved. 2. Njarackal Grama Panchayat has a public market. There are shop rooms within that market. The petitioner took one of the rooms on licence, to run a Hotel. If I were to go by Ext.P4 photograph, the Hotel of the petitioner is situated in close proximity to the shed from where meat etc are sold. The petitioner's complaint is that the panchayat is not abating the nuisance of the unhygienic surroundings in spite of Ext.P5 representation made by him on 10.6.2009. That representation was obviously made after the panchayat committee had decided on 27.4.2009 to require the occupants to share Wpc 29786/2009 2 electricity charges etc per capita. It is that decision of the panchayat committee that led to the issuance of Ext.P6 and P7 whereby the arrears of rent and arrears of contribution towards electricity charges are required to be demanded. 2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner says that the issue in hand is one where the petitioner who belongs to lower strata of the society is deprived of his right to livelihood and therefore the right to live, I am not impressed. He had agreed to pay the licence fee to the occupation. It is not as if market came after the petitioner commenced the activities of the Hotel. The so called hotel is nothing but something that is required to be provided for the labourers and others who work in the market or visit the market. In the situation that would be available in a public Wpc 29786/2009 3 market, it cannot be conceived that the petitioner could sit away from the activities of the market which would necessarily generate dirty water etc. It is definitely for the panchayat to maintain hygiene but that does not give a chance for the petitioner to state that he will not pay the amounts due to the panchayat. Under such circumstances, the challenge to Ext.P7 is repelled. The relief by way of compensation as sought for is also refused. The Panchayat is directed to maintain necessary measures so that there is no unhygienic situation. Writ petition ordered accordingly. The office will communicate a copy of this judgment to the respondent. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Wpc 29786/2009 4 lgk/24/10