NARAYANA PILLAI Vs. THAZHAKKARA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was conducting a private market in his own property for a number of years. His licence was due to expire on March 31, 1959. He applied by Ext. P. 2 for the renewal of his licence on February 19, 1959. The application was addressed to the Panchayat Committee, but the outer cover was addressed to the Executive Authority of the Panchayat and was forwarded by registered post. The cover was returned to the petitioner, with an endorsement of refusal by the Executive Authority to accept it. Ext. P. 2 was accompanied by a money order remittance of Rs. 50/- towards licence fee and this was returned unaccepted by the Executive Authority, Ext. P. 3 being the money order. Later, by Ext. P. 1, the Panchayat issued a notice to the petitioner, restraining him from conducting the private market from April 1, 1959, on the ground, that a public market was going to be opened by the Panchayat. This petition is to quash Ext. P.1, and for the issue of appropriate direction or order regarding the right of the petitioner to hold his private market. The contention of the Panchayat, which is the respondent, represented by its Executive Authority, was, that the application for renewal should have been addressed to the Panchayat and not to the Executive Authority and was therefore rightly refused by the latter. On the other hand, the petitioner's stand was, that under S.71(3)(a) of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the Panchayat was bound, subject to certain rights as to supervision, inspection, etc., to renew the licence for the petitioner's private market and that the application might well have been addressed to the Executive Authority.

(2.) Under S.25(1)(h) of the Act the Executive Authority is empowered to "exercise the executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act and be directly responsible for the due fulfilment of the purposes of this Act". The Act of course has nowhere made provision, as to whom the application for renewal is to be made; but it is more than clear under S.71, that the licence has to be renewed by the Panchayat and not by the Executive Authority. This however does not mean, that an application forwarded to the address of the Executive Authority is not in order. The material part of S.83(12), which finds a place in Chapter VI of the Act entitled "General Provisions Regarding

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention to S.91(2) of the Act, which prescribes the manner in which a notice of suit may be issued against the Panchayat or any member or officer thereof, and may be delivered; this is a special provision which has no application whatever to the issue or renewal of licences. The reliance on Rule 83 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Rules, 1951 is misplaced, because it provides primarily for the holding of meetings. This falls particularly within the scope of the duties of the President of the Panchayat under S.20 of the Act. It is true that there is no provision in the Act empowering the Executive Authority in specific terms to receive an application for the issue of a licence; but I consider, that a provision of this description is not essential, as the Executive Authority is clothed with the full executive power of the Panchayat under S.25(1)(h) of the Act as stated above. I am not also clear, how the application came to be refused by the Executive Officer without opening it and examining its contents. I therefore come to the conclusion, that the refusal of the Executive Authority to receive the cover and place its contents before the Panchayat, was not justified.