IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 281 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28501/2003 Dated 19/03/2007 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- P.BEERANKUTTY, S/O.AHAMED KUTTY, PALLIKUTH (H), KAIPANCHERY, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.281 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 3rd June, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant Panchayat has opened a market for running meat stalls. When the Panchayat asked the respondent to stop running of the meat stalls in building No.994 of Ward 10 and building No.1016 of Ward 6 of the appellant Panahcyat, respondent challenged the same. In paragraphs 5 and 7 of Ext.P1 judgment, this court held that even though Panahcyat can start shopping centres, market etc., it cannot direct the citizens not to start or continue any shops or market elsewhere in the Panahayat. At the same time, while granting licence, Panchayat can consider whether there are any health hazards etc. Here, the Panchayat issued stop memo. The learned Judge referred to the contentions in the counter affidavit and directed the District Medical Officer to visit the shop rooms and furnish a report to the Panchayat to find out whether any health hazards are being caused. Finding of the learned judge is as follows: “The Panchayat will hear the petitioner on his request for licence on the basis of that report and take a fresh decision. In order to enable the petitioner to comply with the directions addressed W.A.281/2008 2 to him in this judgment, the Panchayat is directed to open the shop room and put the petitioner back in possession of the same. The petitioner will start business only after he is able to obtain licence.” We are of the view that Panchayat is not aggrieved by this direction. Findings in Ext.P1 are binding on the Panchayat. It has become final. The Panchayat itself has to decide whether licence has to be renewed or not and that can be done only if pollusion or nuisance is not created. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment at the instance of the Panchayat. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks