IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31472 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJASHEKHAR, CHANDRALAYAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.SADER E.REAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003. 2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, SABARIMALA DEVASWOM, SABARIMALA - 687611. 3. RAMESHAN, NELLUVILAYIL, CHARUMOODU P.O KAYAMKULAM - 688581. R1, R2 BY ADV.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.31472/11 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1:A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2:A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 20.11.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 2.9.2011 SHOWING THE DEPOSIT OF THE SAID AMOUNT. EXT.P4:A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LIST OF STALLS AND DETAILS ATTACHED TO THE TENDER NOTIFICATION. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.31472 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. Third respondent is the contractor for shop No.40 at Sl.No.101 in Ext.P4. That appears to be somewhere at Neelimala downwards. There is a restriction that 'tea shops' can be used only for sale of tea, coffee, cool drinks, light food etc. The complaint of the petitioner is that he has a shop which is at Sl.No.86 in Ext.P4. That is a shop which is called 'other stall', near to the Pampa photo studio. He says that he can sell different other articles. The plea of the petitioner is that he is authorised to sell pori, which is an eatable and the third respondent is vending pori, though his employees, along side the kanana patha and this is affecting the petitioner's business. We see the clear statement in Ext.P4 that 'tea stalls' can also sell lakhu bhakshanam. We are not entering into the issue as to whether pori is a lakhu bhakshanam or an article of food. The WPC.31472/11 2 question whether that can be sold as 'other item' in a shop like that of the petitioner may also be a matter for consideration. All that could be asserted is that every contractor shall act only in terms of his licence. We record the submission on behalf of the TDB that if there is any road side hawking or vending along side the trekking path, that would be appropriately handled in accordance with law. Recording that, we close this writ petition. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge kkb.26/11.