IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2086 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MUHAMMED, S/O.MAMMU, KURNTHOTTIKANDIYIL, HOUSE NO.10/519, KARADI, 18TH MILE, THAMARASSERI.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. MOOSA, S/O. MAMMU KURNTHOTTIKANDIYIL, HOUSE NO.10/520, KARADI, 18TH MILE, THAMARASSERI.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN SMT.P.Y.SHEHEERA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THAMARASSERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. 3. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, KOZHIKODE. 5. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE 7. M/S.HOTEL WAYANAD REGENCY PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. KR. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.2086 OF 2010 (I) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners submit that the 7th respondent is a hotel with FL-3 licence. According to the petitioner the said hotel with the licence is functioning without obtaining necessary licence from the 2nd respondent Panchayat. It is stated that the petitioners have made a complaint to the Panchayat and that the Panchayat is remaining inactive on the aforesaid complaint. It is also contended that for the aforesaid reason the FL-3 licence issued to the 7th respondent is also vitiated. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, the requirements of the Panchayat Raj Act are not complied with, that by itself may not be vitiate the action of the 3rd respondent in granting FL-3 licence to the 7th respondent. Necessarily, it for the Panchayat to ensure the compliance of the requirements of the Panchayat Raj Act. 3. Now that the petitioners have made the aforesaid allegation and as according to them Ext.P5 representation filed is still pending with the Panchayat, it is directed that the Panchayat will examine WPC.No.2086 /2010 :2 : the complaint with notice to the petitioners and 7th respondent and take appropriate action in the matter as expeditiously as possible as expeditiously and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that this court has not expressed anything on the merits of the allegation raised by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/