Afsal N vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12884 Ker

WP(C) NO. 12089 OF 2021
                                       1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
       FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 12089 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

              AFSAL N.
              AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.NOORUDEEN KUNJU,VADAKKADATH
              THEKKATHIL HOUSE,VALLIKUNNAM P.O,
              MEENATHCHERRY,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 501.

              BY ADVS.
              JUSTINE JACOB
              K.S.ARUN KUMAR



RESPONDENT/S:

              1.STATE OF KERALA
              THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
              DEPARTMENT.GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
              PIN - 695 001.

              2.PORUVAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REPRESENTED BY ITS
              SECRETARY,PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM - 690 520.

              3. SECRETARY, PORUVAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,PORUVAZHY,
              KOLLAM - 690 520.


OTHER PRESENT:

              SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, GP FOR R1

              SRI.VINOY VARGHESE, SC FOR R2 AND R3.



THIS   WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
11.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12089 OF 2021
                                  2




                            JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed to direct the 2 nd respondent to

adjudicate Ext.P3 within a time frame.

2. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that he

is carrying out a fish vending business within the jurisdiction

of the 2nd respondent after obtaining Ext.P1 receipt from the

2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent has not acted

upon the application submitted by the petitioner for carrying

on his business. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P2

notice directing the petitioner to close down his business

within seven days.

3. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the petitioner has preferred

Ext.P3 appeal before the committee of the 2 nd respondent, but

the 2nd respondent without considering Ext.P3, is threatening

to close down the business of the petitioner. Hence the writ

petition.

WP(C) NO. 12089 OF 2021

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, the learned Government Pleading appearing for the

1st respondent and Sri.Vinoy Varghese, the learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

5. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already

invoked the statutory remedy by preferring Ext.P3 appeal

before the committee of the 2nd respondent, it is only just and

expedient to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3, in

accordance with law, and take a decision on the same, as

expeditiously as possible. Nonetheless, till a decision is taken

on Ext.P3, Ext.P2 shall not be enforced.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

                                                  C.S.DIAS
ma                                                 JUDGE
 WP(C) NO. 12089 OF 2021




Petitioner's exhibits:

Ext.P1. True copy of the receipt dated 28.1.2021 for the application of license.

Ext.P2. True copy of the notice dated 30.4.2021 of the 3 rd respondent.

Ext.P3. True copy of the appeal dated 24.5.2021 submitted before the 2nd respondent along with its postal receipt