IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14414 of 2008(N)
1. SUBHIKSHA TRADING SERVICES LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KADUNGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :22/05/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 14414 & 14475 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated: MAY 22, 2008
JUDGMENT
These writ petitions raise common issues and they are
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Petitioners in these writ petitions applied to the
respondent panchayat for grant of trade licence and PFA licence.
The initial applications were dated 12th December 2007. The
applications so made by them were rejected by Exts.P7 and P8 in WP
(C) 14475/08 and Exts.P8 and P9 in WP(C) 14414/08. The reasons
assigned for justifying the rejection of the applications made by the
petitioners are that the petitioners herein are monopolistic business
establishments and their entry in the State is detrimental to the
small units. Hence, on the ground of public interest, the petitioners’
entry into the State is sought to be prevented. It is also seen from
the resolution of the panchayat that though the Secretary of the
panchayat had dissented, that did not yield any result. It is
challenging the aforesaid resolution and the communication
WP(C) 14414 & 14475 of 2008
Page numbers
enclosing the same, marked in the manner as indicated above, these
writ petitions have been filed.
3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent
panchayat. At the outset, the challenge was about the
maintainability of these petitions on the ground of availability of
alternate remedy.
4. It is true that an appellate remedy is available. But then,
having regard to the fact that these writ petitions have been
admitted by this court and the panchayat which is the only
contesting party has filed its counter affidavit, and the nature of the
controversy that is raised, I do not think that it is necessary to
relegate the parties to pursue the alternate remedy available to
them.
5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether a
trade licence and a PFA licence could be denied on the ground that
the applicants for the licence are monopolistic establishments and
therefore their entry should not be allowed. In my view such a
stand cannot be justified at all and no such ground of rejection is
WP(C) 14414 & 14475 of 2008
Page numbers
provided for in any of the statutes as well. Respondent could have
rejected the application only on any of the grounds available in the
Act. Even otherwise, I do not think that it is in public interest to
reject the application. In my view, public interest is in favour of
allowing the application which will increase competition in the
market, resulting in balancing of prices and availability of better
commodities. Since the ground for rejection as reflected in the
resolution of the panchayat cannot be traced to any of the
provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the impugned orders viz.
Exts.P7 and P8 in WP(C) 14475/08 and Exts.P8 and P9 in WP(C)
14414/08 deserve to be quashed and I do so.
6. Since the period covered by the original applications
submitted by the petitioners for licence has expired, the respondent
will pass orders granting licences applied for by the petitioners as
per Exts.P2 and P2(a) applications in these two writ petitions.
Orders granting licence as above shall be passed as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of
this judgment.
WP(C) 14414 & 14475 of 2008
Page numbers
7. In WP(C) 144475/08, initially the application submitted by
the petitioner covered installation of certain machineries as well.
But, however, it is seen that in Ext.P3 addressed to the panchayat
the petitioner has undertaken that there will not be any installation
of machinery. This stand of the petitioner that they will not be
installing any machinery on the premises is also reiterated before
me and I record the same.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mt/-