Allowed

Vishnu.a.v v. Manalur Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC5 Jan 2022WP(C)/9269/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the unlicensed operation of a private market by the 4th respondent church for fish and meat vending. The Court found the premises constituted a market under the Kerala Panchayat Act, lacked a required licence under Section 222, and directed respondents to close the market.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to take proceedings to close down the unlicensed Private Market situated in the property of the 4th respondent.

Vishnu.a.v Vs Manalur Grama Panchayath — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022/15TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9269 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 VISHNU.A.V., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, APPANADATH HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 613.

¶8

2 V.C.PRASANNA, MOORAKKAN HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 613.

¶9

3 K.A.BABU, KURUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, KANDASSAMKADAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 613.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 MANALUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANDASANKADAVU P.O., THRISSUR-680 613.

¶14

2 THE PRESIDENT, MANALUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANDASANKADAVU P.O., THRISSUR-680 613.

¶15

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION, ANTHIKKAD P.O., THRISSUR-680 641.

¶18

4 ST.MARY'S FORANE CHURCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR AND TRUSTEES, KANDASSAMKADAVU, KARAMUKKU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 613.

¶19

BY ADVS. R1-2 BY SRI.V.N.HARIDAS R1-2 BY SRI.K.T.BOSCO R1-2 BY SRI.SAIFUDEEN T.S R1-2 BY SMT.SMITHA GOPINATH R1-2 BY SIBY.P.JOSE R4 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

[CR]

: 3 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2022

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶28

The petitioners, who are residents within close proximity of Kandassankadavu Market in Thrissur, are before this Court seeking to declare that respondents 1 and 3 cannot permit the vending of fish, meat and livestock in the Kandassankadavu Market owned by the 4^th respondent without obtaining licence to conduct Private Market. The petitioners seek to direct the 1^st respondent to take effective and appropriate action on the basis of Ext.P4 and Exts.P1 to P3 judgments and prevent illegal vending of fish and meat and slaughtering of animals and birds within the Kandassankadavu Market.

¶29

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

The petitioners state that the Kandassankadavu Market is situated in 1 Acre and 69 Cents of land with about 212 shop rooms, owned by the 4^th respondent-St. Mary’s Forane Church. The 4^th respondent has let shop rooms for illegal Fish/Meat vending and slaughtering, which is done without requisite licences. The petitioners allege that the entire market is run by the 4^th respondent without obtaining any licence from the authorities.

¶32

The petitioners contend that the Market lacks requisite facilities and infrastructure for vending fish or meat. Recognised standards of hygiene are not maintained in the Market. By permitting the illegal and unauthorised market, respondents 1 to 3 are putting the life and health of local residents to grave risk. The meat market is functioning in odd hours. Animal blood and dung are flowing out to nearby areas. Offal, skin, horn, entrails and other wastes are left exposed. Dogs of wild nature and crows in large numbers are attracted to the market. Water sources are being contaminated.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

Local residents approached this Court earlier filing W.P.(C) No.3154/2009 and the 4^th respondent made a submission before this Court that the illegal activities are closed down. This Court, however, directed the 1^st respondent and Police authorities to take appropriate action against any person indulging in illegal activities. But, later, the illegal vending resumed. Certain vendors filed W.P.(C) No.37634/2009 seeking to direct the 1^st respondent to issue licences to meat vending stalls. The 1^st respondent submitted before this Court that the Panchayat does not have a slaughter house and hence it is impermissible to grant licence. The writ petition was dismissed. The 1^st respondent is legally duty bound to shut down the illegal market, urged the petitioners.

¶36

Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit. According to respondents 1 and 2, there are no illegal fish and meat vending Stalls functioning within the local limits of the Panchayat. The 1^st respondent has closed such illegal shops with police assistance. Later, Shop Vendors

¶37

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

¶38

: 6 :

¶39

submitted applications for licence. Thereupon, Exts.R1(a) to R1(l) licences were issued. A civil suit in this regard is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur and the licences are granted subject to the civil suit. This Court had considered the same issue in several writ petitions and disposed of the writ petitions as per Ext.R1(m) judgment. A hearing was conducted thereafter and licences were granted in accordance with law.

¶40

The 4^th respondent in their counter affidavit stated that they have not let out any building for sale of fish or meat

¶41

and that the 4^th respondent has no intention to obtain a Private Market licence.

¶42

Heard.

¶43

The questions arising for consideration are whether the 4^th respondent is running a private market, and if so, is it illegal having no licence under the Panchayat laws and whether there is unauthorised vending of fish and meat, within the market.

¶44

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

¶45

: 7 :

¶46

The specific plea of the petitioners is that there are about 212 shop rooms in 1 Acre and 69 Cents of land owned by the 4^th respondent at Kandassankadavu and a Private Market is functioning in the said property. The place is known as “Kandassankadavu Market”. It is the case of the petitioners that illegal vending of fish and meat takes place in the Market. Going by the tenor of the Counter affidavit filed, the stand of the 4^th respondent appears to be that they have only let out shop rooms and they are not running a Private Market nor do they intend to obtain licence to run a Private Market.

¶47

The term “market” is defined in Section 2 (xxiii) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which is as follows:

¶48

2(xxiii) ‘market’ means any place set apart for ordinarily or periodically used for the assembling of persons for the sale or purchase of grain, fruits, vegetables, meat, fish or other perishable articles of food or for the sale, or purchase of live-stock or poultry, or of any agricultural or industrial or industrial produce or any raw or manufactured products or any other articles or commodity necessary for the convenience of life provided that a single shop or a group of shops not being more than six in number shall not be deemed a market.

¶49

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

¶50

: 8 :

¶51

In the place where the 4^th respondent has leased

¶52

out shop rooms, there are more than six shops and Exts.R1(a) to R1(l) licences issued by the Panchayat would evidence that at least 12 shops in the premises are selling vegetables/fish/meat, which are all perishable articles of food necessary for the convenience of life. Since the number of shops exceeds six, the premises would fall within the definition of “market” as defined under Section 2(xxiii) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

¶53

Section 222 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,

¶54

1994 reads as follows:

¶55

222. Licensing of private markets : -

¶56

(1) No person shall open a new private market or continue to keep open a private market unless he has obtained a licence from the Village Panchayat to do so. such licence shall be got renewed by the licensee every year.

¶57

(2) The village panchayat may, -

¶58

(a) grant the licence applied for, subject to such conditions as it may think fit as to supervision and inspection, sanitation and water supply, weights and measures to be used, rents and fees to be charged and such other matters as may be prescribed.

¶59

(b) refuse renewal of a licence if it is satisfied that such refusal is justified in public interest.

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

: 9 :

(d) modify the conditions of the licence to take effect from a specified date; and

¶64

(e) In a case where renewal of licence is refused under clause (b) the reasons therefor shall be intimated to the licensee and in case the licence cures such defects within the time prescribed such application shall be reconsidered.

¶65

(3) No market fee shall be charged in evening markets (Anthichanthas) and the licence for the same shall be granted free of charge, but shall be subject to such conditions as to supervision and inspection, sanitation and weights and measures to be used as may be prescribed.

¶66

(4) when a licence granted under subsection (2) permits the licensee to levy any fee from the private market, a licence fee not exceeding one third of the gross income of the owner from the market in the preceding year shall be charged by the Village Panchayat:

¶67

Provided that in the case of a new market the licence fees shall be fixed by the Panchayat at rates which shall not be less than the amounts given hereunder, namely:-

¶68

(i) if the area of the market is not more than 0.1 hectare, rupees two hundred;

¶69

(ii) if the area is more than 0.1 hectare but less than 0.2 hectare, rupees four hundred;

¶70

(iii) and if the area is more than 0.2 hectare, rupees five hundred.

¶71

(5) The Village Panchayat or any officer duly authorised by it may close a private market which is unlicensed or the licence for which has been suspended or cancelled, or which is held or kept open contrary to the provisions of this Act after prior intimation.

¶72

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

¶73

: 10 :

¶74

A Private Market therefore cannot be started or continued without obtaining licence from the Panchayat authorities. Neither respondents 1 and 2 nor the 4^th respondent has a case that the Private Market is functioning with a licence issued by the Panchayat authorities under Section 222 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Therefore, the Market is liable to be closed down, the same being illegal and unauthorised.

¶75

As regards vendors doing business in the premises, from Exts.R1(a) to R1(l), it appears that some of the vendors have obtained trade licences from the Panchayat authorities under Sections 232, 233, 234 or 254 of the Act for vending fish and meat. But, under Section 224 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, there is prohibition of sale in unlicensed Private Markets and no person shall sell or expose for sale any animal or article in any unlicensed private market. Therefore, as long as the Private Market in question is not licensed under Section 222, no vendor can sell any animal or article in the market even if such vendors

¶76

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

¶77

: 11 :

¶78

are issued with trade licences.

¶79

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to take proceedings under Section 222(5) of the Act, 1994 to close down the Private Market being run without licence in

¶80

the property of the 4^th respondent, expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶81

Sd/-

¶82

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/03.01.2022

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

: 12 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9269/2021

¶87

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶88

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 29.5.2009 IN WPC NO.3154/2009.	DATED
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 15.1.2020 IN WPC NO.37634/2009.	DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19.11 IN WPC NO.19426/2018.	.2019
EXHIBIT P3(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF PETITION WP(C) NO.19426/2018.	WRIT
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNIC DATED 18.1.2020 ISSUED TO SECRETARY, IST RESPONDENT.	ATION THE
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY RELEVANT PORTIONS O PARISH BULLETIN CIRCULATED BY TH RESPONDENT CHURCH.	F THE E 4TH
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS WITH RESPECT TO THE PREMISES OF KANDASSANKADAVU MARKET.	TAKEN THE
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF LICENSE DEED EXE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PERMITTING OF MEAT IN ONE OF THE STALL IN PRIVATE MARKET.	CUTED SALE THE
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY THE LETTER OF M/S FERTILIZERS, JARAPPADY, N.PARUR 28.8.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE PANCHAYATH.	NICE DATED THE

¶89

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶90

Exhibit R1(a)	TRUE COPY OF MR.FRANCIS.T.J	THE LICENSE GRANTED DATED 14/09/2020.	TO
Exhibit R1(b)	TRUE COPY OF C.P.JOY DATED	THE LICENSE GRANTED 16/06/2021.	TO
Exhibit R1(c)	TRUE COPY OF MR.ABBAS.R.A.	THE LICENSE GRANTED DATED 29/04/2021.	TO
Exhibit R1(d)	TRUE COPY OF MR.JUSTIN.P.J	THE LICENSE GRANTED DATED 29/04/2021.	TO
Exhibit R1(e)	TRUE COPY OF MR.JAIN BASTIA	THE LICENSE GRANTED N DATED 29/04/2021.	TO

¶91

W.P.(C) No.9269/2021

¶92

: 13 :

¶93

Exhibit R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED TO MR.JOY.V.V. DATED 29/04/2021. Exhibit R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED TO MR.ANTO.T.J DATED 16/06/2021. Exhibit R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED TO MR.NASAR.A.A DATED 16/06/2021. Exhibit R1(i) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED TO SMT.SULAIKHA IBRAHIM, DATED 16/06/2021. Exhibit R1(j) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED TO MR.C.P.JOY DATED 16/06/2021. Exhibit R1(k) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED TO MR.JOHNSON.V.V., DATED 29/04/2021. Exhibit R1(l) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE GRANTED TO MR.JEFFIN JOSEPH DATED 29/04/2021. Exhibit R1(m) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC.23560/2010 AND WPC.14414/2011 DATED 22/01/2018.

¶94

Vishnu.a.v v. Manalur Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu.a.v v. Manalur Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moncy Daniel Vs the Alappuzha Municipality

Sajikumar.S.L., Vs Additional Chief Secretary

Biju Augustine Vs Kerala Water Authority

Mahalakshmi, Vs the Executive Engineer

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Sultan Thomas Oommen, Vs Ministry of Corporate Affairs (Mca)