Point of Law: There is no law prohibiting a building complex owner from letting out the building without adhering to the provisions of the Act, 1994.

JUDGMENT :

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

These appeals are preferred by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively in W.P.(C) No.9269 of 2021, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.1.2022, wherein the learned single Judge, after considering the rival submissions and taking into account Section 222 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter called, “Act, 1994” and other relevant provisions of the Act, 1994, allowed the writ petition and directed respondents 1 and 2 to take proceedings under Section 222(5) of the Act, 1994, to close down the private market run without licence in the property of the appellant in W.A.No.334 of 2022 - 4th respondent in the writ petition, expeditiously and in accordance with law.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeals are as follows;

3. The writ petitioners are residents, close to the buildings owned by the appellant Church, which according to the writ petitioners, is a private market as per the description contained under Section 222 of the Act, 1994 and the definitions given to the “market” and “private market” in the Act. It is the case of the 3rd petitioner that his boundary shares with the boundary of the said building complex. That apart, it is submitted that the property in which the alleged market situated is having an extent of about 1.69 Acres, wherein about 212 shop rooms are constructed. According to the petitioners, in spite of the earnest efforts made by them before the statutory authorities to take appropriate action, since no licence was secured by the Church for running a private market and inspite of the directions issued by this Court in Exhibit P1 judgment in W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2009 dated 29th May, 2009 and the judgment in W.P.(C) No.19426 of 2018 dated 19th November, 2019, the authorities have not taken any action, which persuaded the writ petitioners to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the petitioners as well as the people staying in close vicinity to the said building complex are materially affected due to the illegal business of meat & fish, and running of slaughter houses within the premises of the above said market without securing licence in contemplation of the provisions of the Act, 1994. It is further contended that the Panchayat and the Church Authorities are hand in glove with illegally letting out shop rooms within the market to certain persons and thereby, permitting them to run unlawful trade activities without securing licence; and in absentia of licence, such persons are not entitled to conduct business in the market. That apart, it is contended that the directions issued by this Court to the Panchayat in the judgments referred to above are overlooked by the Grama Panchayat and therefore, the petitioners had no other alternative than to approach the writ court seeking the directions for taking appropriate action against the perpetrators of law in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1994.

5. In fact, the appellant Panchayat as well as appellant Church have filed counter affidavits in the writ petition refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. The paramount contention advanced by the Panchayat is that consequent to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, the Panchayat has closed down all the illegal fish & meat vending shops with the aid and assistance of Station House Officer, Anthikkad Police Station, and thereafter, the vendors of the shops have duly submitted applications for licence along with requisite statutory documents. The Grama Panchayat, after duly considering the applications, granted licence to the vendors strictly in compliance with the statutory provisions. The licenses granted to various traders are produced as Exhibits R1(a) to R1(l). That apart, it is pointed out that a civil suit is pending consideration before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur and the licenses are granted subject