J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is stated to be a blind person, as evidenced by Ext.P1 disability certificate. He is stated to be conducting a fruits/dairy products business. Ext.P2 is the licence issued by the 2^nd respondent Secretary. The petitioner states that though the fruits etc., are stored inside the shop room, during day time, they are exhibited in the veranda of the building. However, the 2^nd respondent has issued Ext.P5 notice, essentially alleging that the petitioner has covered the veranda using shutters and this, according to the 2^nd respondent, is an unauthorised construction, which is required to be removed. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P5 issued as above that the petitioner is before this Court.

2. Heard Smt.Neeraja, the learned counsel, representing Sri.C.P.Peethambaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Panchayat.

3. While admitting the writ petition on 16.02.2023, the operation of Ext.P3 was stayed and later on 06.03.2023, the stay order was extended until further orders.

4. In my opinion, with respect to a small shop like the one considered in Ext.P5, there is no justification in issuing a notice di