V. VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the lessee of the property in question. He has been running a Bar and Restaurant in the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a civil dispute between the persons who have executed the lease deed in favour of the petitioner and the impleding applicants who have filed I.A.No.1/2023 and 4/2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that every year the petitioner has been facing the problem of having to contend with the impleading applicants who file objections before the 3rd respondent - Gram Panchayath seeking that Gram panchayath should not issue trade licence in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that earlier too the petitioner was before this court in W.P.No.18735/2010. Similar such impleading applications were filed and it was contended that the impleading applicants would be necessary parties to the proceedings, since they have a right in the immoveable property. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to an interim order dtd. 31/3/2011 passed in W.P.No.18735/2010 while considering similar impleading application. This Court finds that it would be beneficial to extract the entire order so that findings given in the said order need not be repeated. The order dtd. 31/3/2011 reads as follows:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that every year the petitioner is forced to go before the Gram Panchayat or approach this court in view of the objections sought to be raised at the hands of the impleading applicant not to grant or renew the Trade lincence in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that although FDP proceedings have been concluded in FDP No.16/2005 by order dtd. 10/12/2021 in respect of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.63/1984, nevertheless it is given to understand that one of the aggrieved person has challenged the order before this Court in RFA No.746/2022. That being the position, it is submitted that this Court should reject the impleading applications and pass orders directing the respondent - Gram Panchayat to renew the Trade licence and enable the petitioner to secure renewal of the Excise licence.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the impleading applications would submit that much water has flown after the orders were passed in W.P.No.18735/2010. It is submitted that the FDP proceedings have concluded and a portion of the property has fallen to the share of the impleading applicant.