N K MOITHEEN Vs. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are persons who are conducting small trades in vegetables, out of which 4 [four] persons are conducting their shops in the licensed premises of the Municipality. The other persons are conducting their business in their own premises or leased out premises, of private individuals. For ease of reference W.P.(C).No.26225 of 2016 is taken as the lead case.

(2.) The petitioners challenge the resolution of the Municipality at Exhibit P5. The resolution of the Municipality accepted the decisions of the Monitoring Committee appointed, as evident from Exhibit P4. A specific objection raised is against the decision of the Monitoring Committee at item No.1 in Exhibit P4, which is extracted herein:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the decision taken is a complete restriction on the business carried on by the petitioners and is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The restriction cannot be said to be reasonable by any stretch of imagination. There can be no prohibition of the trades carried on by the petitioners as has been held in Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, 1950 AIR(SC) 163, Tahir Hussin v. District Board, Muzaffarnagar, 1954 AIR(SC) 630 and Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and Others v. N.Teekappa Gowda and Bros. and Others, 1971 AIR(SC) 246. It is also submitted that the Municipality could not have adopted a resolution on the dictate of a Monitoring Committee, that too without any reference to the petitioners and without addressing their grievances. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench decision of this Court in K.G.A.Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others, 2015 2 KerLT 683. The Monitoring Committee being one connected cases constituted to decide upon the grievances of those persons who were shifted from the old market, who were also vegetable traders, cannot dictate terms as to how the Municipality should issue licenses and in that process restrict the petitioners from totally carrying on their business. On an identical situation when there was a restriction of sale of fish and meat, a learned Single Judge of this Court has interfered with the same in Azeez v. Pulpally Grama Panchayat, 2002 1 KerLT 529.