Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 14322 OF 2021 PETITIONER:
SHRI.VIJUMON V.B AGED 47 YEARS S/O. BHASKARAN, VALIYAVEETTIL PEEDIKAYIL KENICHIRA P.O. WAYANAD 673 596.
BY ADVS.
SRI JIKKU SEBAN GEORGE SMT.DEEPTI SUSAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS:
1 POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KENICHIRA P.O. WAYANAD 673 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY, POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KENICHIRA P.O.
WAYANAD 673 596.
ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED ADDL.R3. ELDHO.A.V., AGED 38 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 38 YEARS, ADUKALIL, A.K.G.KENCHIRA P.O., POOTHANDI, KENCHIRA, WAYANAD, PIN- 673596.
ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
13.09.2021 IN I.A.2/2021 IN WPC 14322/2021.
ADDL.R4 & R5 IMPLEADED ADDL R4 SABU GEORGE, S/O.K.K.GEORGE, KUNNATH HOUSE, KARIYAMBADI (P.O.), MEENANGADI, WAYANAD- 673 591.
ADDL R5 SMITHA M.VARGHESE W/O.SABU GEORGE, KUNNATH HOUSE, KARIYAMBADI (P.O.), MEENANGADI, WAYANAD- 673 591.
ADDITIONAL R4 AND R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
13.09.2021 IN I.A.3/2021 IN WPC 14322/2021.
BY ADVS.
R1 & R2 BY SRI S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI P.MARTIN JOSE SRI THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R3 BY SRI U.JAYAKRISHNAN SMT.MANASI MURALIDHARAN R4 & R5 BY SRI C.AJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.12.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).14354/2021, 16174/2021 AND
19350/2021, THE COURT ON 5.1.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 14354 OF 2021 PETITIONER:
SRI A.D.RADHAKRISHANAN, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.DIVAKARAN, AMBATTU HOUSE, KENICHIRA P.O., WAYANAD - 673596.
BY ADVS.
SRI JIKKU SEBAN GEORGE SMT.DEEPTI SUSAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS:
1 POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KENICHIRA P.O., WAYANAD - 673596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 THE SECRETARY POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KENICHIRA P.O., WAYANAD - 673 596.
ADDL.R3, R4 & R5 IMPLEADED ADDL.R3. GIREESH.K.P., AGED 44 YEARS S/O.PEETHAMBARAN, KELAKERIYIL, IRULAM, CHEEYAMBARAM, WAYANAD, PIN-673 579.
ADDL.R4. SABU GEORGE, S/O.K.K.GEORGE, KUNNATH HOUSE, KARIYAMBADI (PO), MEENANGADI, WAYANAD-673 591.
ADDL.R5. SMITHA M.VARGHESE, W/O.SABU GEORGE, KUNNATH HOUSE, KARIYAMBADI (PO), MEENANGADI, WAYANAD-673 591.
ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.09.2021 IN IA NO.1/2021 AND ADDL.R4 AND R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.09.2021 IN IA NO.2/2021 IN WP(C) NO.14354/2021.
BY ADVS.
R1 & R2 BY SRI S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI P.MARTIN JOSE SRI THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R3 BY SRI U.JAYAKRISHNAN SMT.MANASI MURALIDHARAN R4 & R5 BY SRI C.AJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.12.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).14322/2021, 16174/2021 AND
19350/2021, THE COURT ON 5.1.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16174 OF 2021 PETITIONER:
ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 35 YEARS S/O MOIDU, KAMBAR HOUSE, KARAKKAMALA.P.O, ANCHAM MILE, MANANTHAVADI CIRCLE, WAYANAD-670645.
BY ADVS.
SRI JIKKU SEBAN GEORGE SMT.DEEPTI SUSAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS:
1 POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KENICHIRA.P.O, WAYANAD-673596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KENICHIRA.P.O, WAYANAD -673596.
ADDL.R3 & R4 IMPLEADED ADDL.R3 SABU GEORGE S/O K.K.GEORGE, KUNNATH HOUSE, KARIYAMBADI( P.O.), MEENANGADI, WAYANAD-673591.
ADDL.R4 SMITHA M. VARGHESE W/O SABU GEORGE, KUNNATH HOUSE, KARIYAMBADI( P.O.), MEENANGADI, WAYANAD-673591.
ADDL. R3 AND R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
13/09/2021 IN I.A. NO. 1/2021 IN WP(C)16174/2021.
BY ADVS.
R1 & R2 BY S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI P.MARTIN JOSE SRI P.PRIJITH SRI THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI AJAY BEN JOSE SRI MANJUNATH MENON SRI R.GITHESH SRI HARIKRISHNAN S.
R3 & R4 BY C.AJITH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.12.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).14322/2021, 14354/2021, AND
19350/2021, THE COURT ON 5.1.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19350 OF 2021 PETITIONER:
SHRI SHABBER ALI AGED 41 YEARS S/O. ABU, THAYYIL THODIYIL HOUSE, KOLAGAPPARA, KRISHNAGIRI, WAYANAD - 673591.
BY ADV N.ANAND RESPONDENTS:
1 POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KENICHIRA P.O, WAYANAD - 673596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KENICHIRA P.O, WAYANAD - 673596.
BY ADV P.MARTIN JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.12.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).14322/2021, 14354/2021 AND 16174/2021, THE COURT ON 5.1.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.14322, 14354, 16174 & 19350 of 2021 --------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of January,2022
['JIKKU SEBAN GEORGE', '', 'DEEPTI SUSAN GEORGE', 'P MARTIN JOSE', 'U JAYAKRISHNAN', 'MANASI MURALIDHARAN', 'C AJITH KUMAR']
JUDGMENT
The common issue that arises in all these writ petitions is the refusal by the Poothadi Grama Panchayat to renew the D&O licence issued to the petitioners for conducting chicken and fish stalls. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14322/2021 claims to be the owner of a commercial building and states that he intends to conduct a chicken stall in a shop room in his own building. The licence had been issued to him which was valid till 31.3.2021. He had submitted application to renew the licence and he was issued with Ext.P7 communication rejecting the request for the reason that (a) the Panchayat has granted licence for starting a private fish and meat market in Kenichira town and (b) as a step towards development, cleanliness and beautification of the town, it had been decided by the Panchayat on 29.5.2021 not to renew the licenses for vending fish and meat in Kenichira town during the financial year 2021-22.
3. The petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.14354/2021 and
16174/2021 are persons who had applied for a D&O licence for conducting fish and chicken stalls and the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.19350/2021 had applied for D&O licence for conducting a fish stall. Orders similar to Ext.P7 produced in W.P. (C)No.14322/2021 have been issued in their cases also and the reasons are also similar.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.
5. The contention put forward by the counsel for the petitioners is that the reasons stated for refusing the licence are not sustainable in law. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Beeran Kutty V. Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayat [2003 (3) KLT 256], Azeez v. Pulpally Grama Panchayat [2002 (1) KLT 529] and Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat v. Johny Roy [2013 (3) KHC 857]. In Beeran Kutty (supra), this Court held that the mere fact that the Panchayat has a shopping complex cannot be a reason to insist that the applicant for licence is not entitled to carry on the business in his own premises. It was held that the applicant had a fundamental right to carry on a business of his choice and he cannot be compelled to keep the premises in his possession idle and unproductive. Such a restriction was found to be illegal. In Azeez (supra), this Court held that the provisions in the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules which enable persons to start private markets by obtaining licence from the Panchayat cannot be a reason to refuse licence to a person who satisfies the conditions stipulated in the Rules for grant of a licence for vending fish and meat. In Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat (supra), this Court considered a case where a blanket policy decision was taken by the Panchayat not to permit certain kind of establishments in the Panchayat area. This Court held that the Panchayat is not vested with any authority to take such policy decisions under the provisions of Sections 166(1), 232, 233 or the D & O Rules.
6. The respondents have filed counter affidavits reiterating the reasons stated in the order of rejection and drawing support from the decision taken by the Panchayat Committee.
7. In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat, it is stated that the existing fish and meat stalls are causing serious pollution and as a part of the initiative to make the town clean and to retain ISO certification, the shops have to be shifted to a convenient private market. It is further stated that the Panchayat had negotiated with the owner of the private market to regulate the rent to be charged from the traders and to avoid any arbitrariness. Several other reasons have also been stated and it is stated that the decision was taken in public interest.
8. Having heard the counsel on either side, I am of the opinion that the reasons stated in the orders rejecting the applications for renewal cannot be sustained. Where persons are already conducting business on the basis of the licenses issued to them, they cannot be asked to move their business premises to a private market which again is owned by another priv
