IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10203 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.R.NARAYANAN EMBRAN, AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE M.RAMAKRISHNAN, EMBRAN, RESIDING AT PRAJEENA HOUSE NO. 158, THAMARASSERY ROAD POONITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM PROPRIETOR OF M/S KAIRALI GRANITES MARADU, COCHIN - 682 304 BY ADV. SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT ( SPECIAL GRADE) OFFICE OF THE MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH MARADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. K.MOHANRAJ, AGED 62 YEARS S/O KANDASWAMY, I B GEE GEE SPRINGS, NO.239, LLOYDS ROAD CHENNAI - 600 086 3. M.KISHORE KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS S/O K.MOHANRAJ, I B GEE GEE SPRINGS, NO. 239, LLOYDS ROAD CHENNAI - 600 086 4. K.KANCHANA, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O KANDASWAMY, 50 K, APPAVOO NAGAR, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT TAMIL NADU, PIN CODE - 636 701 5. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, AGED 34 YEARS S/O O.P. SHARMA C.C.12/323, COCHIN COLLEGE ROAD, MATTANCHERRY VILLAGE KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KERALA, PIN CODE - 682 002 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.10203 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P8 order of the Secretary of the Panchayat. Under Ext.P8, the Secretary of the Panchayat has virtually rejected the petitioner's claim for renewal of licence for the conduct of business in Granites which was being conducted on the basis of previous licences. The reason stated in Ext.P8 is that the petitioner has not produced the document issued by the previous owner which will show that the petitioner's possession over the premises is lawful. On the terms of Ext.P8 if the document is not produced immediately, the licence fee which has already been collected from the petitioner will be forfeited. According to the petitioner, the Secretary has chosen to issue Ext.P8 only at the behest of the 5th respondent who is already pitted in a civil dispute with the petitioner. The statute provides remedy by way of appeal to the committee of the Panchayat against Ext.P8. WPC.No.10203/08 2 I dispose of the writ petition relegating the petitioner to that remedy. However, considering the merit noticed in some of the grounds raised in the writ petition, there will be an order directing the Panchayat not to enforce Ext.P8 till such time as appeal preferred by the petitioner is disposed of, if the petitioner actually prefers an appeal within three weeks from today. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.10203/08 2