In view of the nature of the issue, that is agitated, these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The petitioner in writ petition No.16043 of 2003 had submitted an application as Ext.P1 on 17-04-2003 requesting the Kottamkara Grama Panchayat that a licence may be issued to him to conduct a meat stall in a private market at karikode. His grievance is that this was not responded, but Ext.P2 had been sent to him, that since the Panchayat had decided to auction out the right of vending meat in a temporary shed at Karikode it may be possible for him to partake in the auction by depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- as EMD. The petitioner had come at this stage and he has impleaded the 4th respondent, who according to him was the successful bidder. An interim order has been passed where under confirmation of such auction had been stayed.

3. The case of the petitioner rests on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Peter v. Perayam Panchayat (1996 (1) KLT 362). The petitioner submits that what had been requested for as a licence to vend meat in a private market and it was the same stall that was proposed to be auctioned by the Panchayat by way of Ext.P2, though it had been stated that the acution was for the right tosell meat in a temporary stall. According to him, the panchayat had no private market at Karikode and in fact they had a public market situated in a different palce and the unathorised entry to a private market was irregular as known to them and Ext.P1 application was liable to be disposed of on merits.

4. In WPC No. 16246/2003, the claim is slightly different. In the private market, owned by Smt. Syamala Nityanandan (third respondent herein), the petitioner had been conducting astall for vending meat for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. An application for renewal of the liecence, for the year 2003-2003, had been submitted by him before the first respondent-panchayat. Ext.P6 is the licence that had been issued to him for the year 2002-2003. But, he had been denied permission for renewing the arrangement and the reason projected by the Panchayat was that he had fallen in arrears in the matter of payment of licence fee for the past year. Of course, at that time, he had filed another Original petition before this Court (O.P.No.111375/2003), and by judgment dated 11-4-2003, this Court directed the Panchayat to consider the application of the petitioner. But he has been issued with Ext.P5 order, practically holding that his application for licence for the year 2003-2004 is rejected.

5. Sri. Saifudeen (Petitioner in WPC No. 16246/03) is aggrieved that he had been misled in the matter from they very inception. According to him, he was running a meat stall in the Karikode private market and the Panchayat had during the previous years conducted an unauthorised auction of such right s in the private market and he had been forced to part with substantial amounts. It was totally unauthorised and again for the year concerned his application for revewal of the licence had been rejected for altogether irrelevant reasons. The submission of the petitioner in short is that in respect of a private market the Grama Panchayat had no right to poke its nose and the application for licence or renewal of the same alone should have been appropriately considered. He submits that the Panchayath had misled the gullible by posing that they possessed such rights and had enriched themselves unjustly. He had been denied right to sell meat, which is a fundamental right for him, quite arbitrarily.

6. The petitioners had relied on the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Section 221 of the Act deal with establishment of public markets. The provisions are extracted herein below.

"221. Public Markets - (1) The Village Panchayat may, provide places or use as public markets or close any such market or part thereof. All public markets within a villiage panchayat area shall be under the control and management of the Village Panc