Dismissed

Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat v. Abdul Salam

Kerala HC10 Jul 2007WA/158/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ appeal filed by a Panchayat against a Single Judge order directing it to decide on licence renewal applications. The appellate court held that no grounds existed to interfere with the lower court's decision or the observation regarding fresh applications.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the impugned order of the Single Judge stands.

Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat Vs Abdul… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2007 / 19TH ASHADHA 1929

¶6

WA.No. 158 of 2004

¶7

--------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.39112/2002 Dated 23/10/2003

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3

¶9

¶10

MUNDAKKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MUNDAKKAYAM P.O.

¶11

THE SECRETARY, MUNDAKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUNDAKKAYAM P.O.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 1ST RESPONDENT

¶14

¶15

ABDUL SALAM S/O. LATE SYEDMUHAMMED PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, VENDAPATHAL P.O., MUNDAKKAYAM, ERUMELI NORTH VILLAGE.

¶16

A.REHMATHULLA S/O. LATE AHAMMED RAWTHER, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, FATHIMA CHICKEN CENTRE MUNDAKAYAM P.O., MUNDAKKAYAM.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶19

R3 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶22

¶23

W.A.No.158 of 2004

¶24

-----------------------------------------Dated, this the 10^th day of July, 2007

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶27

This writ appeal is filed by the second respondent Panchayat in O.P.No.39112 of

¶28

Petitioners in the writ petition applied for grant of licence to run meat stalls . The Panchayat did not take any decision on Exts.P9 and P10 applications filed by the petitioners for renewal. The writ petition was filed for a direction to the Panchayat to take decision on those applications.

¶29

The learned Single Judge directed that the applications made by the petitioners for renewal of licence shall be considered by the Panchayat and appropriate orders passed. It was also held that if the petitioners satisfy the stipulations for grant of licence, licence shall be issued to them. Further it was held that the interim order by which the petitioners were allowed to continue to run the meat stalls will remain in force till a decision is taken by the Panchayat.

¶30

By the judgment impugned, the Panchayat was only directed to dispose of the applications filed by the petitioners in the writ petition. The observation made by the learned Single Judge that the petitioners shall submit the applications within one month from the date of judgment is objected to by the learned counsel for the appellants. This direction was issued in the wake of the submission made by the Panchayat that Exts.P9 and P10 applications were not subsisting. No document was produced to prove that Exts.P9 and P10 applications were disposed of. The observation made by the learned

¶31

W.A.No.158/2004

¶32

¶33

Single Judge is by way of abundant caution that if the applications were not available, the petitioners in the writ petition were entitled to make fresh applications. The appellants cannot be aggrieved by the said direction.

¶34

No grounds are made out for interference with this appeal. Accordingly the writ

¶35

appeal is dismissed.

¶36

( H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶37

(K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE

¶38

vns

Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat v. Abdul Salam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat v. Abdul Salam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.a.K.B.Sadhbhavana Mission Trust Vs Dr.Janakikutty

Fathima Memorial Educational Trust Vs Dr.C.Gopinatha Pillai

Nizhar Rather Vs Aniyan Mathew

Adimakutty Vs Muhammed Haneesh and Another

Mundakayam Grama Panchayat Vs P.S.Abdul Salam

Vazhikadavu Town Ksheerolpadaka Sangham Vs State of Kerala