K P AZZEZ Vs. PULPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This O.P. is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to renew the licence to the petitioners to conduct meat and fish business at Pulapelly town pursuance of Exts.P4 to P10 applications, to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P14 notice as it violates Rule 25 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (grant of licence to Public and Private Markets) Rules, to declare that the licenses are deemed to have issue to the petitioners since the statutory period for disposing of the applications for issue of licence is over and to issue a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Exts. P4 to P10 applications for renewal of licenses expeditiously.

(2.) The petitioners are fish and meat vendors in Pulpally Panchayat and they have been conducting the business after obtaining licence from the Panchayat. The 1st respondent Panchayat permitted the 2nd respondent to construct a private market and the 1st respondent- Panchayat directed the petitioners to get meat stalls and fish stalls allotted in the new market. According to them. The 2nd respondent is claiming very exorbitant amount towards deposit and rent for the stalls to be allotted to them. They have also contended that the 1st respondent has issued Ext. P14 notice intimating that the private market will be opened from 16.09.2001 and prohibiting the conduct of meat and fish business within three kilometers from the proposed market. They have also contended that they are conducting business in the Pulpally town about 1 1/2 Kms. Away from the proposed private market at Thazhe Angadi in Pulpally and the above notice issued by the 1st respondent is in contravention of Rule 25 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Grant of licence to public and private markets) Rules, 1996. They have further contended that they have been conducting business with valid licence issued by the 1st respondent-Panchayath for the last more than 15 years and their application for renewal of licence evidenced by Exts P4 to P10 are pending consideration before the Ist respondent. Therefore, they seek direction to the 1st respondent to renew the licence given to the petitioners to conduct meat and fish business at Pulpally town and to quash Exts.P14 notice issued by the Panchayat, being violative Rule 25 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Grant of licence to public and private markets) Rules 1996.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that the petitioners have agreed to occupy the stalls and accordingly occupied the respective stalle allotted to them after arriving at a settlement with the 2nd respondent regarding the rent to be and accordingly occupied the repective stalls allotted to them after arriving at a settlemnt with the 2nd respondent regarding the rent to be paid and the deposit to be made.