BEERANKUTTY Vs. SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Petitioner, according to him, had been engaged in sale of meat in two rooms in the Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayath for about ten years. When he had made an application for renewal of licence after remitting the fee for the year 2003-2004, the Panchayath has not taken notice of it nor has granted licence for the year. He had thereupon filed Ext. P2 representation requesting the Panchayath to consider the application. As no orders were forthcoming, he has filed this Original Petition.
(2.) In view of the interim orders that had been passed, it had been directed that petitioner was not to be dispossessed from the premises, which he has been occupying. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is carrying on the business on the strength of the interim orders.
(3.) Sri. Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel for the Panchayath submits that the petitioner has not presented the full facts. In view of certain public interest litigations and consequent directions of this Court, the Panchayath was obliged to construct a market complex where sale of fish and meat could be conducted in neat and hygienic manner. Other infrastructure also had been made available to the vendors. Petitioner had also been offered space there and he is in occupation of two rooms. It was in this circumstance that his application for renewal of licence in the erstwhile shops was not considered by the Panchayath. According to them, his application for licence has been sanctioned and he is running the shop in the market complex. He cannot have additional shops. The submission of Sri.Menon therefore appears to be that when the Panchayath has constructed a market complex, and he having occupied it, it may not be permissible for the petitioner to continue to occupy the old premises and simultaneously carry out the business there also.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.