Dismissed

Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayath v. P.Beerankutty

Kerala HC3 Jun 2008WA/281/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged a lower court order directing the Panchayat to restore a shop room to the petitioner. The High Court held that the lower court’s findings were final and binding, finding no ground to interfere. Consequently, the Writ Appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal No.281 of 2008 was dismissed; the judgment under challenge stands sustained.

Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayath Vs P.Beerankutty — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

WA.No. 281 of 2008() ----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28501/2003 Dated 19/03/2007 ....................

¶6

APPELLANT: RESPONDENT:

¶7

-----------------------------------------

¶8

SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

¶10

RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER:

¶11

-----------------------------------------

¶12

P.BEERANKUTTY, S/O.AHAMED KUTTY, PALLIKUTH (H), KAIPANCHERY, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH

¶14

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.

¶16

W.A.No.281 OF 2008

¶17

Dated 3^rd June, 2008

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Koshy,J .

¶20

Appellant Panchayat has opened a market for running meat stalls. When the Panchayat asked the respondent to stop running of the meat stalls in building No.994 of Ward 10 and building No.1016 of Ward 6 of the appellant Panahcyat, respondent challenged the same. In paragraphs 5 and 7 of Ext.P1 judgment, this court held that even though Panahcyat can start shopping centres, market etc., it cannot direct the citizens not to start or continue any shops or market elsewhere in the Panahayat. At the same time, while granting licence, Panchayat can consider whether there are any health hazards etc. Here, the Panchayat issued stop memo. The learned Judge referred to the contentions in the counter affidavit and directed the District Medical Officer to visit the shop rooms and furnish a report to the Panchayat to find out whether any health hazards are being caused. Finding of the learned judge is as follows:

¶21

“The Panchayat will hear the petitioner on his request for licence on the basis of that report and take a fresh decision. In order to enable the petitioner to comply with the directions addressed

¶22

W.A.281/2008

¶23

¶24

to him in this judgment, the Panchayat is directed to open the shop room and put the petitioner back in possession of the same. The petitioner will start business only after he is able to obtain licence.”

¶25

We are of the view that Panchayat is not aggrieved by this direction. Findings in Ext.P1 are binding on the Panchayat. It has become final. The Panchayat itself has to decide whether licence has to be renewed or not and that can be done only if pollusion or nuisance is not created. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment at the instance of the Panchayat.

¶26

The appeal is dismissed.

¶27

P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶28

tks

Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayath v. P.Beerankutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulthan Bathery Grama Panchayath v. P.Beerankutty

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

P.B.Selvaraj Vs T.S.Biju

Komala Vs Subramonian

Lakshmi @ Sreelakshmi & Another Vs Dr.K.Gopalakrishnan and Another

P.K.Ajayan Vs a.Gopinathan

Daniel Decruz Vs Annassisbik v. George

Mahatma Gandhi University Teachers Asso. Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University