IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 6178 of 2009(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T. ANANDAN, S/O.KORU, THOKKAMANNYL HOUSE, CHOOLOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT POWR OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF K.K.SHANAVAS, S/O.K.K.KRISHNAN, KRISHNAJA HOUSE, P.O.MUTTUNGAL, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.S.M.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MEENANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MEENANGADI P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. K.K.HASSAN, KALLANGODAN HOUSE, KARACHAL P.O., CHEERANKUNNU, MEENANGADI, WAYANAD. * ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED ADDL. R3: NISSAR, S/O.ABDULLA, ANIYAPPURAM VEEDU, KAVADOM, KANIYAMBATTA AMSOM, CHEEKKALLOOR DESOM, NADAVAYAL P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK. * IS IMPLEDED IN WP(C).6178/2009 AS ADDL. R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 31/03/2009 IN I.A.4651/2009. R1 BY ADV. MR.ASOK M.CHERIAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 6178/2009-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED IN TO BETWEEN POWR OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01/11/2002. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/12/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/01/2009. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTING HIM TO VACATE THE SHOP ROOM. EXT.P6(a), (b) AND (c): COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF THE AMOUNT DEMANDED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE POWR OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE PETITIONER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE AUCTION NOTICE DATED 12/10/2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER CANCELING THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY SR.K.K.SHANAVAS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01/04/2007 TO 31/03/2008, DATED 23/06/2007. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWING THE LEASE OF THE SHOP ROOM FOR THE PERIOD 2008-09 IN FAVOUR OF SHIR.K.K.SHANAVAS. EXT.R1(c): COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY SAID TO HAVE EXECUTED BY SRI.K.K.SHANAVAS IN FAVOUR OF SRI.T.ANANDAN DATED 27/04/1995. EXT.R1(d): COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO PANCHAYATH. EXT.R1(e): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18/11/2008 ISSUED TO SRI.K.K.SHANAVAS. EXT.R1(f): COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO SRI.T.ANANDAN WITH COPY TO SRI.K.K.HASSAN DATED 19/12/2008. EXT.R1(g): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/03/2009 ADDRESSED TO SRI.K.K.SHANAVAS WITH COPY TO SRI.K.K.HASSAN. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 6178/2009 & I.A NOS. 6574 & 6575 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The matter relates to a premise, which belongs to the panchayat and over which a license was granted for occupation for the purpose of running a hotel. There are factual controversies going by Ext.P1, R1(a), R1(c) and other documents. Pending consideration of this writ petition, which was filed challenging the auctioning out of the right to run the shop therein, the panchayat has cancelled the license. While the petitioner seeks amendment of the writ petition, to permit challenge to that license also, it is abundantly clear that the said decision could be challenged before the competent statutory authorities. At any rate, this is not a matter that needs to be entertained in this jurisdiction having regard to the disputed questions of fact. While the petitioner Anandan states that the license was originally granted to Shanavaz and Anandan thereafter became the power of attorney of Shanavaz, it is a matter of record that Anandan thereafter inducted the second WP(C) 6178/2009 2 respondent Hassan as “Manager” in terms of Ext.P1. If I were to conclude the matter, a perusal of clause 2.6 of Ext.R1(a) obliges that the person to whom license is granted shall not in any manner leave the possession of the room without the prior permission of the Municipality. But these mixed questions of facts cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction particularly when the panchayat has now cancelled the license. In this view of the matter, this writ petition and the interlocutory applications are dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P9 before the competent authorities in accordance with law. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/9/6