IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32180 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.R.SUNIL, S/O.RAMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, PUTHUVYPE P.O. VYPPIN, COCHIN TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALIPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 511. 2. THAMPI, S/O.SANADEVAN, MANNALIL HOUSE, MALIPURAM, OCHANTHURUTH, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 3. M.M.XAVIER, AGED 53 YEARS, MOOLAMKUZHI HOUSE, NJALANKARA, THRIKKAKARA. ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).32180/2009 ....................... Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner was selling fish in a fish stall situated in building No.IX/269 A of Elamkunnapuzha Village. That building belonged to the 2nd respondent and was licenced as a fish market. Panchayat shifted the market to another building belonging to the 2nd respondent numbered as VI/229. Though several vendors like the petitioner have shifted to the new premises petitioner and some others continued at Building No.IX/269 A. Thereafter the petitioner shifted to yet another building bearing Nos.IX/272 and 273. In the meantime, the petitioner also filed an application for licence to the Panchayat which was rejected by Ext.P6 order on 14.5.2009. In spite of this, petitioner continued the business. Now he has been issued notice, calling upon him to stop further sales and it was informed that if they do not comply with the requirements of the notice, he will be forced to stop the activities. In Ext.P6, reference is made to an order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions as well. Petitioner's contention is that as against Ext.P6 order rejecting the application for licence, an appeal has been filed before the W.P.(C).32180/09 2 Panchayat Committee, which is pending consideration. It is stated that in the meanwhile, he shall not be forced to close down the shop. 2. However learned counsel for the Panchayat, on instructions, submit that once the market was shifted to Building No.VI/229, petitioner has not been granted any licence. It is also brought to my notice that the shifting of the market was the subject market of W.P.(C).32083/2008 filed by another person in which the petitioner herein got himself impleaded as additional respondent No.24. It is stated that by judgment dated 6.4.2009, that writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the Panchayat to enforce its legal obligations and clarifying that if additional respondents like the petitioner are aggrieved by the shifting of the private market to the new premises, they are at liberty to challenge the same before the appellate Tribunal. It was also directed that if an appeal is filed within six weeks, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. It is pointed out that neither did the petitioner stop his business activities at the unlicensed premises nor did he file any appeal to the Tribunal pursuant to the judgment mentioned above. W.P.(C).32180/09 3 3. Evidently as at present, the petitioner is conducting his business in building No.IX/272-273 in respect of which the petitioner does not have licence to continue his business. The market has been shifted to a new premises which has been confirmed by this Court in the judgment referred to above and none of the aggrieved parties have challenged the said shifting by filing any appeal to the appellate Tribunal. 4. In such circumstances, the Panchayat cannot be faulted for the order that they have issued. However, if as stated by the petitioner, he has preferred an appeal against Ext.P6 order rejecting his application for licence, it is upto the Panchayat to dispose of the same in accordance with law. This the Panchayat shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs