NAUSHAD, MUKALUVILA KULAPPADAM Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a resident of Nedumpana Grama Panchayat in Kollam district. The petitioner is aggrieved by two actions of the 3rd respondent Panchayat. The first is in auctioning the right to vend meat in the public markets within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat, without establishing a slaughter house as mandated by the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder. The second is regarding the right of the Panchayat to auction the right to conduct shops in private markets at Kulappadam and Velichikkala within the Panchayat. The petitioner submits that both the actions of the Panchayat are prohibited by decisions of this Court in John Mathew v. Vechoochira Grama Panchayat, 1999 (3) KLT 243, Peter v. Perayam Panchayat, 1996 (1) KLT 362 and Salim v. Dy. Director of Panchayat, 2003 (3) KLT 516. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. The stand of the Panchayat in the counter affidavit and the arguments of the counsel for the Panchayat is that the Panchayat does not have a suitable place for housing a slaughter house and, therefore, the Panchayat could not establish a slaughter house within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat. Instead, they are availing of the facilities available with the slaughter house established by the Kollam Corporation, which is perfectly in accordance with the Act and Rules is the contention raised. It is also stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition, insofar as none of the persons participated in the auction for right to vend meat and none of the licensees of the private markets has come forward to challenge the actions of the Panchayat complained of.

(3.) THE petitioner is admittedly a resident of the 3rd respondent Panchayat. The activities complained of in this writ petition are matters affecting the health and welfare of the residents of the Panchayat. That being so, the petitioner has a personal right in respect of those matters and he is certainly entitled to maintain this writ petition in his own interest apart from public interest as well. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the Panchayat that the petitioner does not have locus standi to file this writ petition. Even apart from that, coming from the mouth of a Panchayat, such a contention does not look good at all. The Panchayat is expected to safeguard the health of the residents of the Panchayat and it is their statutory duty as well. When residents are complaining that they are not performing their statutory duties in accordance with law, the Panchayat cannot hide behind such technical contentions especially when the health of the residents of the Panchayat is at stake.