IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 W.A.No.1341 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.14475/2008 (W), DATED 22/05/2008 .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:- ------------------------------------------- KADUNGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADUNGALLUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:- ----------------------------------------- CITY CAPITAL FOUNDATION LIMITED, 4/236, SHBC HOUSE, KAYYATTINKARA ROAD, MUPPATHADAM P.O., ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND MANAGER ASHOK RAJASEKHAR. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1341 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 27th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.14475 of 2008 dated 22nd May, 2008. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner had called in question Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the Kadungallur Grama Panchayat. By those orders the respondent Grama Panchayat had rejected the request made by the petitioner for grant of trade licence and PFA licence. 3. The reason assigned by the Grama Panchayat for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner is that if licence is granted, the respondent herein will establish a monopolistic business and their entry in the State is detrimental to the small units in the State. 4. The learned Single Judge, after going through the specific provisions which provides for grant of licence, has come to the conclusion that the reason assigned by the Grama Panchayat for rejecting the resonable request made by the petitioner is de hors the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act ('the Act' for short) and accordingly while WA.No.1341 of 2008 2 quashing the impugned orders passed by the Grama Panchayat has directed the Grama Panchayat to issue the licence. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not in a position to point out any provision under the Act which would authorise them to reject the application for grant of trade licence and PFA licence solely on the ground that if any such licence is granted the applicant would be having a monopolistic business in the State. In our opinion, the reason so assigned is not only bad in law but also contrary to the statutory provisions. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which would call for our interference in appeal. 6. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE vns