IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10846 of 2010(E)
1. BINU M.JOHNSON, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. JOHNSON M. PAUL @ PRAKASH, AGED 39 YEARS
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, SALES
3. THE EDATHUVA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
4. THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,
5. THE SECRETARY, EDATHUVA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
6. M.M.PAULOSE, MANNARETHU(SOBHA NIVAS)
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).10846/2010
--------------------
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are proprietors of a shop called ‘Prakash Vessel
Palace’. In this writ petition their grievance is against Ext.P9
order of the 5th respondent cancelling the licence issued by the
Panchayat. Ext.P9 is dated 17.7.2009 and aggrieved by the said
order, petitioners have filed Ext.P11 appeal along with Ext.P12
stay petition. So far appeal and stay petition have not been
heard. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed
challenging Ext.P9.
2. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already
invoked the statutory remedy of appeal by filing Ext.P11, I feel it
is only appropriate that orders should be passed thereon as
expeditiously as possible.
3. Taking into account the above facts, I dispose of this writ
petition with the following directions:-
W.P.(C).10846/10
2
(i). Ext.P11 appeal shall be considered by the
4th respondent within four weeks of production
of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the
petitioners and other affected parties.
(ii). Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that even as on date, Ext.P9 has not
been implemented. If it is so, it is directed that
status quo as on date, insofar as Ext.P9 is
concerned, shall be maintained till the appeal is
disposed of.
Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along
with the copy of the writ petition before the 4th respondent for
compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs