S VAIRAPALAM Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These observations made by the Supreme Court will set the tone for these judgments. In these batch of writ petitions the competing interests of shop-keepers claiming right to sell fish and fowl in various wards within the limits of the town panchayat with conditions of licence and the desire of the town panchayat to relocate them to its shopping area located outside its limits are clashing with each other.

(2.) The petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are all traders in selling in meat, poultry and fish within the Town Panchayat limits of Sathankulam Selection Grade Town Panchayat.

(3.) In all these writ petitions, the petitioners were aggrieved by the notices issued by the Town Panchayat by the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat. The petitioners informed that the Town Panchayat in its meeting held on 19.08.2008, passed a resolution No. 277 by which the Town panchayat had decided to shift all the meat shops to the newly constructed complex constructed by the Town Panchayat. It was the stand of the panchayat that the decision was taken for maintaining the hygienic condition of the locality. Pursuant to the resolution an advertisement was also put up and informed that the shops owners were given notice since the notices were not complied with a final warning was issued by the impugned action of the town pancahyat stating that if they have not removed their shops in which they were selling fish, meat and poultry and if they do not remove the shops within 7 days and locate the shop into the newly built shopping complex, necessary restraint action will be taken for the petitioners from continuing the public health hazard and further action will be taken against the petitioner S. Aggrieved by the notices, the writ petitions came to be filed.