IYPE ULAHANNAN Vs. PANCHAYAT BOARD MANJALLUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is to quash the decision of the manjallur Panchayat (the 1st respondent) to shift the public market (in part)from its present site, and the order of the 3rd respondent (copy Ext. P-8)passed on the appeal presented by the petitioner against the Panchayat's decision. The petition also prayed for a writ of mandamus against the 4th respondent, the State of Kerala, to dispose of the revision preferred against the order of the 3rd respondent, (Ext. P-9) and the application for stay filed therein (Ext. P-10 ). At the hearing of the O. P. on 8 61966, it was represented that the revision petition evidenced by Ext. P-9 had been disposed of by the government, by proceedings dated 315 1966. The Petitioner thereupon filed C. M. P. 4639 of 1966 to amend the O. P. and prayed to quash the order passed on revision, a copy of which was filed along with the C. M. P. as Ext. P-13.

(2.) THE decision of the 1st respondent, to shift the public market was objected to by the petitioner on three principal grounds. First, that there was no sanction of the Director of Panchayats for shifting the market as required by S. 85 (1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 32 of 1960. Second, that the procedural requirements for the shifting of the market prescribed by R. 3 of the Kerala Panchayats (Public and Private Markets) Rules, 1964 had not been observed as there was no publication of the proposal in any newspaper, and no invitation of objections to the proposal; and third that the decision for shifting the market was mala fide and with a view to favour the president of the Panchayat who owns lands to the south of the proposed new site of the market, which would be considerably benefitted by the shifting.

(3.) IT appears to me also, that non-publication of the sanction would not invalidate the sanction altogether. The ex-post facto publication of the sanction does not appear to be a condition precedent to its validity, but only a means for its promulgation. I am therefore of the view that the argument based on the invalidation of the sanction by reason of its non-publication, cannot avail the petitioner.