IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 21024 of 2008(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- ASHARAF.K., S/O.KOYAKUTTY, AGED 34 YEARS, PALLIVELIL HOUSE, KELLELIBHAGOM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV.SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.M.A.VINOD SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KARUNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), KARUNAGAPPALLY. *ADDL.R2. K. THAHAKUNJU, AGED 46 YEARS, PALLIVELIL HOUSE, KALLELIBHAGOM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM NOW RESIDING AT SAMEER MANSIL, PERUVALLYBHAGOM, KOTTUKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM P.O. *ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2008 IN I.A. NO. 9047 OF 2008 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM FOR R2 SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, ALONG WITH WP(C) 23087/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 21024/2008 (C) A P P E N D I X PETITIONR'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE OBTAINED FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY the LABOUR OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY TO THE PETTIONER HAVING NO. KNPY/1405/2005. EXT.P2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY the LABOUR OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY TO THE PETITIONER HAVING NO. KNPY/1408/2005. EXT.P2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY the LABOUR OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY TO THE PETITIONER HAVING NO. KNPY/1407/2005. EXT.P2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY the LABOUR OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY TO THE PETITIONER HAVING NO. KNPY/1395/2005. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE OF THE PETITIONER HAVING NO. K.8.261/07-08 DATED 12.07.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 13.06.2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 21.06.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 09.07.2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE GIVEN BY THE PEITITONER TO THE RESPONDENT. // T R U E C O P Y // PS TO JUDGE jan. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) Nos. 21024 & 23087 OF 2008C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these writ petitions are brothers. 2. In so far as W.P.(C) No. 21024/08 is concerned, the challenge is against Exts. P4 and P6 notices issued by the respondent Panchayat requiring the petitioner herein to stop the business forthwith, as he was carrying on the business despite an order of the Panchayat refusing to renew the licence. In so far as W.P.(C) No. 23087/08 is concerned it is filed by the additional 2nd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 21024/08 and what he seeks is essentially implementation of Ext. P2 notice for which he has filed Ext. P3 representation before the Panchayat. 3. The dispute concerns the business that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21024/08 is conducting in building No. KP III/2073 and there are rival claims including that of ownership of the premises. 4. Now that the Panchayat has refused to renew the licence W.P.(C) Nos. 21024 & 23087 OF 2008 -2- presumably on a complaint made by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23087/08 and has issued notice to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21024/08 to stop his business forthwith, in my view the appropriate remedy available against such a notice is to file an appeal as provided in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act itself. This, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21024/08 may do within two weeks from today in which case, the appellate authority shall consider the appeal, with notice to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23087/08 and pass orders thereon. Orders shall be passed by the appellate authority as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of receipt of a copy of the appeal. It is directed that in the meanwhile, the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No. 21024/08 by order dated 14.7.2008 will remain in force. 5. It is also clarified that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23087/08 will be permitted to file his objections to the appeal and produce whatever documents he wants to rely on. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-