Licenses for fish booths issued within prohibited distance are valid if number of shops is less than six, as defined by applicable statute.

1. The petitioner has participated in a tender floated by the 1st respondent and was successful with respect to the conduct of a fish market.

2. The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition contending that the 1st respondent Grama Panchayath, after permitting the petitioner to conduct the fish market as above, has also issued licences to others to run fish booths, within the prohibited area under R.25 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issuance of Licence and Control of Public and Private Markets) Rules, 1996.

3. I have heard Sri. John Joseph (Roy), the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. R. Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri. Zubair Pulikkool, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent herein.

4. The sustainability or otherwise of the findings contained in Ext.P6, to the extent of permitting other fish vendors to run fish booths, within a distance of 3 kms from the fish market allotted to the petitioner is the sole issue arising for consideration in this writ petition.

5. True, under R.25 of the afore rules, no new 'public market' can be run or opened on the basis of a licence and no 'private market' can also be run within a distance of 3 kms from an existing public / private market in a Panchayath. At the first blush, the contention raised by the petitioner appears to be attractive. However, the applicability of the afore rule, has to be considered with reference to the definition of the term 'market' under S.2 (xxiii) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994. A reading of the afore definition would show that a single shop or a group of shops not being more than six in number will not be considered to be a 'market'.

6. In the case at hand, in Ext.P6, the Panchayath has specifically contended that, the claim of the petitioner regarding market cannot be considered, since the number of shops are less than six. The afore stand taken in Ext.P6, has not been contraverted in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. There is no challenge to the provisions of the Rules also.

7. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition.