IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24065 of 2008(M) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------------- AJITH GEORGE, S/O.LATE O.K.GEORGE, OLIYAPURAM, VADAKKENCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKATESH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. VADAKKENCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VADAKKENCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. V.G.VINOD KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, VADAKKEDATH, KALAYANTHANI P.O., THODUPUZHA. 3. K.M.JALEEL, KAN JEWELLERY, VADAKKENCHERY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKKENCHERRY. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24065/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Initially the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court as WP(c).No.20979/2008. In that writ petition, the relief sought for was to prevent the Panchayat from permitting the second respondent to start a fish market. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies and also directing the Panchayat to make available a copy of the proceedings that lead to the issuance of the licence to the second respondent. 2. Petitioner submits that in pursuance thereof Ext.P2 application and the licence, was made available to him. Aggrieved by the licence so granted, the petitioner states that he has filed Ext.P4 appeal before the Committee of the WP(c).No.24065/2008 2 Panchayat. In this writ petition, the complaint is that, though the Committee has received the appeal filed by him, consideration of the appeal is being delayed and while on the other hand, the second respondent is proceeding with the establishment of the fish market. In this background, relief sought for is to direct the Panchayat to expedite the disposal of the appeal. 3. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and on perusing the pleadings, I see no reason to deny the relief prayed for by the petitioner. Since he is fighting against the establishment of the fish market which has been licensed as per Ext.P2, it is essential that his appeal should be expeditiously disposed of. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the first respondent shall consider Ext.P4 appeal as expeditiously as possible and pass orders thereon, at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. WP(c).No.24065/2008 3 Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the Panchayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.24065/2008 4