John Clintus And Ors vs Munnar Grama Panchayath And Ors

W.P.(C)No.40604 of 2016 was filed by one John Clintus and others complaining against the conduct of a chicken stall by the petitioner in W.P.

(C)No.714 of 2017. In W.P. (C) No.40604 of 2016 an interim order was passed on 20.12.2016, which reads as follows:

“Admit.

Sri. Arun Thomas, learned Standing Counsel appears for R1 and R2.

Issue notice to R3.

The 2nd respondent shall verify whether the 3rd respondent's activities are carried on with proper permit and license and if not the same shall be

stopped forthwith, if necessary with police helpâ€​

It is submitted that pursuant to the said interim order, the chicken stall which was being operated by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.714 of 2017 was

closed down by the Panchayat Authorities. In W.P. (C)No.714 of 2017 an interim order was passed on 09.01.2017 directing as follows:

“Admit.

Learned Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.

Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 3 and 5.

Learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 4th respondent.

Notice by speed post to 6th respondent.

Post after a month for the counter affidavit of the respondents.

In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent shall open and hand over the keys of the premises of the petitioner, which is stated to have been locked by the

said respondent, for the limited purposes of the petitioner entering the said premises for carrying out the repair activities, so as to enable the petitioner

to seek a license for conduct of his business. It is made clear that, pending further orders from this Court, the petitioner shall not carry out any

business in the premises.â€​

Following the order dated 09.01.2017 in W.P.(C)No.714 of 2017, the Panchayat Secretary handed over the keys of the premises in question to the

petitioner in W.P.(C)No.714 of 2017. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.714 of 2017 that the land lady

from whom he had taken the premises on rent forcibly took away the key from him and took possession of the premises in question. It appears that

thereafter the land lady herself started a chicken stall in the premises regarding which also there was a complaint raised by one Lakshmana Prakash

through W.P. (C)No.38432 of 2017 and that writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Panchayat not to permit any operation of the chicken

stall then being operated by one Ammini George, the land lady, until she obtains a proper license in that regard from the Panchayat. The Panchayat on

a consideration of the matter appears to have subsequently issued a license to the said Ammini George. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.714 of 2017

thereupon preferred an appeal before the Panchayat Committee challenging the decision of the Secretary to issue the licence and that appeal has been

directed to be disposed of by this Court through judgment dated 21.06.2018 in W.P. (C) No.18963 of 2018.

The facts being as above, I do not think that there is anything surviving for consideration in these writ petitions. If the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.714

of 2017 is aggrieved by the alleged forcible repossession of the premises by his land lady (Ammini George), it is for him to obtain necessary relief by

approaching the Civil Court. The petitioner is also free to pursue his remedies against the grant of license to the aforesaid Ammini George, if he is so

advised. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he has filed a contempt of court case alleging noncompliance of the directions

contained in the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) No.18963 of 2018. It is obvious that no observation in this judgment will affect the rights of the

petitioner to prosecute the contempt of court case.

With the above observations, these writ petitions are closed.