IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2011/18TH PHALGHUNA WP(C).No. 1002 of 2011 (A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. E.M.KOYAN, AGED 45, S/O.MUHAMMED ERAMTHURUTHY HOUSE, IRAMALLOOR PO, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. NOUFAL.T.M,THELAKKATT HOUSE, IRAMALLOOR PO, KOOTTILOANJI, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI. PAULSON THOMAS. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. NELLIKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN- 686691. 2. SECRETARY, NELLIKUZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTHAMANGALAM- 686691. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 1002 of 2011 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. P1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. P1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. P1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12/12/2010. P4: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 24/12/2010. P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07/01/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT-PANCHAYAT. R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT RECEIVED FROM SALOMI. R1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION RECEIVED FROM THE RESIDENTS OF NELLIKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT. R1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE HEALTH SUPERVISOR TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. R1(E): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE HEALTH SUPERVISOR TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. R1(F): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE HEALTH SUPERVISOR TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. R1(G): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. R1(H): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE HEALTH INSPECTOR SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. R1(I): TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY. //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C. T. RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.1002 of 2011. --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT The first petitioner is holding Ext.P1 licence to run the business of sale of livestock at Koottilanjikara in Iramaloor Village of Kothamangalam Taluk. The purpose of which the licence has been issued is specifically mentioned in column No.2 in Ext.P1 as RÎã·Bæ{ ¼àÕçÈÞæ¿ ÕÞBâKÄßÈá¢ ÕßWAáKÄßÈá¢Q. Ext.P1 was renewed subsequently, as is evident from Exts.P1(a) to P1(c). This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 and seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for renewal of Ext.P1 licence for the year 2010-2011 within a time limit prescribed by this Court and also to direct the respondents not to prevent the petitioners from carrying on the business of sale of livestock as permitted in Ext.P1 licence. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the respondents. In the counter affidavit, the circumstances under which the W.P(C) NO.1002 OF 2011-(A) -:2:- impugned order was issued has been specifically explained. Evidently, feeling aggrieved by the manner in which the petitioners have been conducting the business on the strength of Ext.P1, certain persons in the locality made complaints with the second respondent. Going by Ext.P1, licence has been issued in the name of the first petitioner. Admittedly, the second petitioner is also indulging in the said business activity, without obtaining any licence from the Panchayat. In this context it is to be noted that on 26/11/2010, Ext.P2 notice was issued by the second respondent to the second petitioner asking him to discontinue with the illegal activities. It is specifically stated thereunder that no permission was granted to him by the Panchayat in conducting business of selling of livestock. The circumstances under which Ext.P5 was issued, is evident from Ext.P5 itself: RæÈÜïßAáÝßd·ÞÎÉFÞÏJßæÜ §øÎÜïâV ÕßçÜï¼ßWæMG §øáÎÜÉÞ¿ß ®K ØíÅÜJí È¿JßæAÞIßøßAáK ¥ÈÇßµãÄ µKáµÞÜßÕcÞÉÞø¢ ÈßVJßÕÏíAÃæÎKí 26.11.10Èí ¨ ¦ËàØßW ÈßKá¢ ÄÞCæ{ ¥ùßÏßºîßøáKÄÞÃí.å¦ÏÄßÈí 13.12.2010Èí ÄÞCZ ØÎVMßºî ÎùáÉ¿ß ÄãÉñßµøÎæÜïKí çÈøßGáUå¥çÈb×ÃJßW çÌÞicæMGßGáIí. ¿ß ØíÅÜJí µKáµÞÜß ÕcÞÉÞø¢ È¿JáKÄßÈí ¦ÕÖcÎÞÏ ÍìÄßµ ØÞÙºøcBZ ÏÞæÄÞKá¢ ÈßÜÕßW §ÜïÞJÄÞÃí.åµâ¿ÞæÄ ÕcÞÉÞøJßÈÞÏß æµÞIáÕøáK W.P(C) NO.1002 OF 2011-(A) -:3:- µKáµÞÜßµ{áæ¿ ÕßØV¼¼cÕØñáA{á¢ ÎãÄÖøàøB{á¢ ØÎàÉJáUåçÄÞGßÜá¢ ÉøßØøB{ßÜá¢ ÄUáKÄÞÏß ÉøßØøÕÞØßµ{áæ¿ ÉøÞÄßÏá¢ ÜÍßºîßGáIí.å§AÞøÃB{ÞW ÉøßØíÅßÄß ÎÜßÈàµøÃÕá¢ ¦çøÞ·cdÉÖíÈB{â¢ ©IÞµáKÄÞÏß ¦çøÞ·cÕµáMí ¥ÇßµãÄøá¢ 07.01.2011Èí ¨ ¦ËàØßW ùßçMÞVGí æºÏíÄßGáIí.Q A bare perusal of Ext.P5 would reveal the circumstances that compelled the second respondent to issue Ext.P5 notice to the second petitioner. As already noticed herein before, much prior to the issuance of Ext.P5 in and vide Ext.P2, the second petitioner was required to discontinue with the said illegal activities. 3. Evidently Ext.P1 licence has been granted by the respondents in the name of the first petitioner. When licence has been issued to a particular person to conduct a particular business, that person alone has permission to conduct the concerned business, of course, by strictly adhering to the relevant provision under the Panchayat Raj Act and also under other relevant laws. The first petitioner was not authorised to conduct the said business through another person especially without the permission and consent from the respondents. In the light of the pleadings in this writ petition, the first petitioner cannot say that he had W.P(C) NO.1002 OF 2011-(A) -:4:- not allowed the second respondent for running the business in the concerned area. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the respondents are justified in issuing Ext.P2 as also Ext.P5 to the second petitioner requiring him to discontinue with the illegal activities mentioned therein. The petitioners cannot challenge Ext.P5 that has been issued to the second petitioner who admittedly did not possess the requisite licence to conduct a cattle market, merely because, the first petitioner permitted the second petitioner to be a partner in his business. If at all there is any permission given by the first petitioner that will not confer any right on the second petitioner, either to conduct the business in question, that too, a manner discernible from the complaints received by the respondents which are exhibited as Exts.R1(a), R1(b) & R1(c). 4. When it is brought to the notice of a competent authority that a person who was not granted the licence to do a business, that too in a manner causing considerable inconvenience to the public at large, the respondents are bound to take appropriate action. The respondents are rightly taken action on receipt of such complaints. Challenge against such action cannot be entertained by this Court on technical grounds. The W.P(C) NO.1002 OF 2011-(A) -:5:- contention of the petitioner is that in terms of provision under Sec.222(5) of the Panchayat Raj Act, the Secretary of the Panchayat is not the competent authority to take appropriate action. I am of the view that the second petitioner cannot be permitted to raise any such contention in view of the admitted position that he was not licensed to engage in the business by the Panchayat. The very action on the part of the first petitioner in permitting the second petitioner to illegally conduct the business or to associate with him in the business without the consent and permission of the Panchayat also cannot be ignored. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice that Exts.P2 and P5 are only notices and not orders issued by the second respondent. Necessarily, the second respondent has to issue such notices to that in terms of Sec.222(5). The authority competent to issue final orders is then the Panchayat. So long as Exts.P2 and P5 are not orders passed by invoking the power thereunder and Exts.P2 and P5 are only notices that cannot be challenged by the first respondent as well. If he is having any grievances against Exts.P2 and P5 he has to raise it before the first respondent. The first petitioner has a further grievance that the W.P(C) NO.1002 OF 2011-(A) -:6:- application submitted for renewal of Ext.P1 has not taken up by the respondents for consideration. It is in the above circumstances the second prayer has been made. However, on going through the prayer No.2, it is seen that the said prayer is for issuance of writ of mandamus or direction, directing the respondents to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for renewal of Ext.P1 licence for the year 2010-2011. I am of the view that the said prayer as such cannot be allowed. Evidently, Ext.P1 licence has been issued in the name of the first petitioner and, therefore, the first petitioner alone is having a right to seek for its renewal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to my notice that Ext.R1(a) notice was issued to the first respondent requiring him to take appropriate steps for curing certain notified defects. In case, the first petitioner takes appropriate action taking into account the defects noted in Ext.R1(a), his application would be considered in accordance with law, it is further submitted. 6. In the circumstances, it will be open to the first petitioner to approach the respondents for renewal of Ext.P1 after effecting such remedial action to cure the defects in terms of Ext.R1(a). In case, the first W.P(C) NO.1002 OF 2011-(A) -:7:- petitioner approaches the respondents for renewal of Ext.P1 after taking such remedial action, the respondents shall consider the application for renewal of Ext.P1, in accordance with law, after conducting an inspection in the place in question, where the first petitioner was conducting the cattle market, to see whether remedial steps were properly taken. Needless to say that the question of renewal of Ext.P1 would depend upon the outcome of such an inspection. At any rate, such a decision on receipt of the application for renewal, shall be taken expeditiously on receipt of such an application. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C. T. RAVIKUMAR JUDGE krj