IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37024 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- HAMEED P.K., AGED 56, S/O.KOCHAHAMMED, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, PATTILANGADI, VADANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE VADANAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.VADANAPPALLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680614. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, VADANAPPALLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680614. 4. MUHAMMED MUBARAK, S/O.M.M.ABDUL MAJEED, MUKRIYAKATH HOUSE, VADANAPPALLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680614. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37024 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that as in the previous years, during the current year also, he was the successful auction purchaser for conducting the market established by the 2nd respondent Panchayat. It is stated that although the petitioner has paid all amounts due to the Panchayat, admittedly for the reason that the Panchayat has some disputes with the owner of the property where the market is established and that the owner has obtained a decree in his favour from a Civil Court, the functioning of the market is being obstructed either by the Panchayat or by the police or by the owner himself. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. Essentially therefore, the case of the petitioner is that at the instance of the 4th respondent the landlord, obstruction is created on the functioning of the market, which has been auctioned by the petitioner. In my view, if this be the grievance of the petitioner, the primary cause of action of the petitioner is against the 4th respondent and the redressal of which has to be WPC No. 37024/10 :2 : sought before the appropriate Civil Court. Therefore, with that liberty, the writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp