Dismissed

Mundakayam Grama Panchayat v. P.S.Abdul Salam

Kerala HC10 Jul 2007WA/97/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed this writ appeal challenging a writ petition. The Single Judge held that a Panchayat cannot reject valid renewal applications for meat stalls on the ground that the Panchayat has earmarked specific areas for auctioning such rights. The High Court agreed, relying on precedents that restricting vending areas offends Article 19(1)(g), and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed upholding the lower court's order refusing to quash the auction notice.

Mundakayam Grama Panchayat Vs P.S.Abdul Salam — Consumer Protection | 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. 97 of 2004 ------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24565/2003 Dated 23/10/2003 ....................

¶7

APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶8

¶9

MUNDAKKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MUNDAKKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM SRI.JOSY ANTONY

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS. 1, 3 & 4

¶12

¶13

P.S.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.SAYED MOHAMMED, AGED 49 YEARS, PUTHUPARMBIL HOUSE, R.P.C. P.O. VANDANPATHAM, MUNDAKKAYAM.

¶14

A.RAHMATHULLAH, AGED 57, S/O.AHAMED RAWTHER, KOLLAMPARAMBIL, LOSSWAY, MUNDAKKAYAM.

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶17

JOHNSON C.J. S/O.JOSEPH, CHETTIPARMBIL HOUSE, KARINILAM P.O. MUNDAKKAYAM.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH R3 & R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MEERA

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

W.A.No.97 of 2004

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶27

Second respondent in W.P.(C) No.24565 of 2003 is the appellant in this

¶28

writ appeal. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the writ petition for the following reliefs:

¶29

“(i) to call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P12 and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to cancel the auction dated 23.7.2003 which was conducted illegally and to take steps to give right to start meat stall to the petitioners and otherS accordinG to the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act by issuing licence;

¶30

(ii) to direct the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 representations in accordance with law.”

¶31

Ext.P11 is an auction notice issued by the Panchayat proposing to auction the right to vend meat in the Panchayat area.

¶32

The learned Single Judge relying on the decision in Peter v. Perayam Panchayat (1996 (1) KLT 362) held that the Panchayat will have no right or authority to reject the licence applications to run meat stalls in the very same area even in adjoining places where it proposed to auction the right to occupy or sell meat in the premises provided by it. The appellant is aggrieved by the observation made by the learned Single Judge that any application for renewal of licence from the petitioners cannot be rejected on the basis of Ext.P11

¶33

W.A.No.97/2004

¶34

¶35

notification. Ext.P11 is a notification issued by the Panchayat to auction the right to conduct meat stalls. It is held by this Court in Peter v. Perayam Panchayat (1996) (3) KLT 362), Salim v. Deputy Director of Panchayats (2003 (3) KLT 516) and Beerankutty v. Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayat (2003 (3) KLT 256) that the Panchayat has no jurisdiction to restrict vending of meat in the particular places earmarked by the Panchayat and that it would offend Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The observation made by the learned Single Judge that the application of the petitioners for renewal of licence cannot be rejected is perfectly justified since the petitioners are running meat stalls in the shops which were in their possession or occupied by them. Under the pretext of fixing the areas where meat stalls could be conducted, as observed by the learned Single Judge, the Panchayat has no authority to reject the application for renewal of licence on the ground that the Panchayat has fixed specified areas for vending meat.

¶36

Challenge in the writ appeal is without substance and therefore, the same is dismissed.

¶37

( H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

(K.T.SANKARAN) JUDGE

¶39

vns

Mundakayam Grama Panchayat v. P.S.Abdul Salam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mundakayam Grama Panchayat v. P.S.Abdul Salam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Vazhikadavu Town Ksheerolpadaka Sangham Vs State of Kerala

Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat Vs Abdul Salam