VINOD KUMAR M Vs. PANCHAYATH DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the market fee fixed by the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat in Kilimanoor Public Market on account of the decision taken by the Grama Panchayat committee. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver this common judgment. The facts and documents contained in W.P.(C) No.19826 of 2018 are relied upon and the decision rendered thereunder will decide the fate of the other writ petition also.

(2.) The grievance highlighted by the petitioner therein is that, the hike in the levy of fees in Kilimanoor Public Market by the Panchayat is without jurisdiction and contrary to the rates fixed by the Government under Rule 8 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issuance of Licence and Control of Public and Private Markets) Rules, 1996, (hereinafter called, 'the Rules, 1996'). According to the petitioner, the levy of fees of public markets are governed by the Rules, and the Schedule attached to Rule 8 of the Rules stipulates the minimum and maximum fees to be levied in Public Markets under a Panchayat.

(3.) The decision No.1 in Agenda Item No.3 in Ext.P4 is regarding the hike in the rates of the market fees at Kilimanoor Market, wherein it was decided to enhance the fees as proposed and decided to approach the 1st respondent Government. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by the petitioner is that, there was no decision to hike the market fees and on account of the decision taken by the Panchayat committee, the Panchayat has decided to approach the Government seeking enhancement of fees. Therefore, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner initially in the writ petition was to quash the decision No.1 in Agenda Item No.3 in Ext.P4. However, when the counter affidavit was filed, Ext.R2(b) decision of the Panchayat committee was produced dated 28.03.2018, that the hike made as per Ext.P4 decision is made effective as per Rule 14 of the Rules. Thereupon, the writ petition was amended by the petitioner challenging the said decision also.