AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Surendra Mohan, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P1 notice by which she has been directed not to carry on the business of conducting a chicken stall in her property. According to the petitioner, she has been carrying on her business for the past many years. But admittedly, she has not obtained any licence from the Panchayat. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong with Ext. P1 notice. The petitioner has no right to carry on the business without obtaining necessary licence from the Panchayat. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that Ext. P2 application for licence was submitted by her to the second respondent on 11-9-2012. However, she complains that no orders have been passed thereon till date.
Adv. Ranjith Tamban, Senior Advocate appears for the second respondent and submits that a resolution has already been passed by the Panchayat resolving not to grant licence to the petitioner''s chicken stall. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to conduct her business. The counsel also points out that the said resolution has not been the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner before any forum.
A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. The third respondent is a neighbour of the petitioner. He has produced Ext. R3(a) along with I.A. 14344/2012 which is a copy of Panchayat resolution deciding not to grant a licence to the petitioner. Since the petitioner''s application has already been rejected, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition.
Heard. The licencing authority who is empowered to consider Ext. P2 is the second respondent. Admittedly the second respondent has not considered the petitioner''s application or passed any orders thereon. Reliance is placed on a resolution passed by the Panchayat on 11-10-2012. The Panchayat committee is not the licensing authority and therefore they have no right to usurp the powers of the Secretary. The second respondent Secretary has to exercise his powers independently, in accordance with law, if necessary, after conducting an inspection of the site. Therefore, the resolution relied upon by the respondents cannot be treated as a rejection of the petitioner''s application. The same being absolutely without any authority of law, is liable to be ignored and not acted upon.
In view of the fact that no orders have been passed by the second respondent on Ext. P2 application, it is necessary that the said application is considered and appropriate orders passed thereon, without further delay. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Ext. P2 application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the resolution adopted by the Panchayat on 11-10-2012, if necessary after conducting a site inspection, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the third respondent. Pending final orders on Ext. P2, all further coercive action against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.