The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging the Panchayat order directing the petitioner to stop selling groceries and tobacco without a D&O licence.
The writ petition stood dismissed with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/16TH JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 3349 of 2017 (P)
-----------------------------
PETITIONER:
JOSE, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSY, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, HASHMI NAGAR, P.O.KODANNUR, PARALAM GARMA PANCHAYAT WARD-II, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS SMT.E.U.DHANYA
RESPONDENTS:
1. PARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, P.O.AMMADOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 563.
2. SECRETARY, PARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, P.O.AMMADOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 563.
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 3349 of 2017 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF TH REQUEST DATED 14.12.2016 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF D&O APPLICATION DATED 18.01.2017.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT DATED 18.01.2017.
WXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.01.2017.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R2(a): TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 07-12-2016. (REF. NO.B3/8705/16) EXHIBIT R2(b): TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 18-01-2017. (NO.B3 8705/16) EXHIBIT R2(c): TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 21-02-2017 (B3 778/17) EXHIBIT R2(d): TRUE COPY OF DEVICION NO.89/17 DATED 7-3-2017 OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2(e): TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 14-03-2017 (REF NO.B 3/778/17)
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
sf
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
====================== W.P.(C) No.3349 of 2017 - P
=========================== Dated this the 06th day of June, 2017
Judgment
The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P3, by
which, the petitioner was directed to stop carrying on sale of groceries in the residential house of the petitioner; that too without a D&O licence. The petitioner claims to be a senior citizen eking out his livelihood by conducting a grocery shop, within his residential house. The petitioner admits to have not taken out any D&O licence from the Panchayath.
the petitioner on a decision of this Court reported in Executive Officer, Atholi Panchayat v. Sreedharan [ 1987
(2) KLT 698] , wherein, the ration dealers were proceeded
against for conducting ration shops without a D&O licence. This Court found that for selling of rice and sugar in retail
2
W.P.(C) No.3349 of 2017
there is no requirement to take D&O License as per the then existing rules. This Court, found so based on the provisions of Schedule 1 of the Kerala Panchayats (Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1963 (for brevity 'the Rules of 1963). Sugar and rice were not included in the schedule. Though wholesale trade of grains was included, retail sale was not mentioned in the schedule.
3
W.P.(C) No.3349 of 2017
affidavit, in which Exts.R2(c) to R2(e) orders are produced Ext.R2(c) is an order passed by the Panchayat. A further Resolution taken by the Panchayath at Ext.R2(e) also indicates that the petitioner had been carrying on trade of prohibited tobacco inside the residential house. It is also seen from the aforesaid orders that the petitioner is conducting a shop inside the residential house situated in a colony, wherein, people of the marginalised section of society are residing. The sale of tobacco products pollutes
the community and exposes even children to the use of tobacco, is the forcefull submission.
establishing the unit and issuance of licence was also rejected by Ext.R2(e) passed by the Committee of the Panchayath. In such circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the action of the Panchayath.
4
W.P.(C) No.3349 of 2017
The writ petition would stand dismissed. No
Costs.
Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB/06/06/2017
1 issue framed by the court
whether the High Court ought to interfere with the direction by the Panchayat to stop the sale of groceries and prohibited tobacco without a D&O licence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Executive Officer, Atholi Panchayat v. SreedharanDistinguished¶37
Executive Officer, Atholi Panchayat v. Sreedharan [ 1987 (2) KLT 698]
JOSE
PARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SECRETARY, PARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Parties & counsel
