The petitioner who is running a hotel by name “Tipsy Hotel” at Ettumannoor has approached this Court as he was given to understand that the respondent Panchayat is proposing to establish a retail fish market on a puramboke land very close to the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner alleges that the presence of a retail fish market on such close proximity would sound the death knell of the petitioner's establishment.
2. The petitioner has filed Ext.P1 before the second respondent objecting to the proposal. The petitioner alleges that in the instance case he has reason to believe that his objection would not be considered by the respondents and that the requirements of notice and public hearing provided under Rule 3 of the Rules would be dispensed with by the respondent Panchayat. It is also WP(C).13148/12 -:2:-
averred that the past conduct of the respondents does not inspire confidence.
3. Arguments have been heard.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that even though the petitioner has objected to the starting of retail fish market, the respondents gave short shrift to the mandatory provisions of law and attempted to take the law into their hands. It was also pointed out that temporary licence was issued by the respondent Panchayat as a result of which, the fish market is still functioning under petitioner's nose though there is no provision for such temporary licence.
5. As the petitioner's definite case that Ext.P1 objection raised by him is still pending before the second respondent, this Court is of the definite view that there can be direction to the respondents to dispose of Ext.P1 after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Till that exercise is completed, the WP(C).13148/12 -:3:-
respondent Panchayat is restrained from granting licence for retail fish market in the puramboke land in question.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
krj Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE /True Copy/ P.A to Judge