SUKUMARI Vs. UPPUTHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is engaged in greengrocery within the limits of Upputhara Grama Panchayat, the first respondent. She has submitted an application for licence to conduct the trade on 30.12.2010. Since, no order was passed even after the expiry of the statutory prescribed time limit, she started the business. While so, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 notice by the second respondent requiring her to close down the business within 15 days. Evidently, such a notice was issued to the petitioner based on the decision of the Panchayat Committee that no licence should be issued to conduct vegetable trade within the limits of Upputhara Town Area. THE specific contention of the petitioner is that the earlier decision referred to in Ext.P3 was not served on the petitioner and therefore, she is incapacitated to challenge it effectively in appropriate proceedings. THErefore, the petitioner has applied for copy of the order dated 10.2.2011 viz., the resolution No.IV as per Ext.P4. However, no order was passed on Ext.P4. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The learned standing counsel, on instruction, submitted that after the institution of this writ petition Ext.P4 application was taken up for consideration and as requested by the petitioner, the copy of the resolution dated 10.2.2011 referred to in Ext.P3 was furnished to the petitioner. In fact, all the required documents requested as per Ext.P4 have been submitted to the petitioner it is further submitted. The learned standing counsel submitted that Ext.P3 is appealable before the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institutions. Since all the copies of the required documents have already been supplied the petitioner has to work out her remedy to redress the grievance against Ext.P3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequent to the institution of this writ petition, copies of all documents required requested as per Ext.P4 were supplied. Therefore, it is submitted that may be permitted to pursue with her statutory remedy to redress the grievance against Ext.P3 in appropriate proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner has been conducting the business for the past several months, the interim order dated 8.3.2011 may be ordered to remain in force for a period of 4 weeks so as to enable the petitioner to pursue her remedy. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the rival contentions, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue her remedy against Ext.P3 in appropriate proceedings. To enable the petitioner to pursue the same, the respondents shall keep in abeyance all coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P3 for a period of 4 weeks. Disposed of accordingly.