AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 236 wordsC. S. Dias, J
The writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent to adjudicate Ext.P3 within a time frame.
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.
Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the committee of the 2nd respondent, but the 2nd respondent without
considering Ext.P3, is threatening to close down the business of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition.
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.
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.