Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Kerala · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8887 (KER)

SAJEESH N.S., v. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

WP(C)/43192/2024 · 2025-03-14

Ziyad Rahman A A

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:KER:22079 WPC.No.43192/24 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 43192 OF 2024 PETITIONER: SAJEESH N.S., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SIVASANKARAN, YESODHA NIVAS, KAYARAAMPARA, THIRUVILWAMALA, KUTHAMPALLY P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680 594. BY ADVS. SHAJI THANKAPPAN SUBIN K SUDHEER AMAL BABY AJAY GOPAL RESPONDENTS: 1 THE SECRETARY, THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUVILWAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, TEMPLE RD, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 588. 2 RAJMOHAN, AGED ABOUT 28, A.R.HANDLOOMS, KUTHAMPALLY P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680 594. 3 ARAVIND, AGED ABOUT 28, A.R.HANDLOOMS, KUTHAMPALLY P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680 594. 2025:KER:22079 WPC.No.43192/24 2 4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, PAZHAYANNUR, VADAKKETHARA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 587. BY ADVS. R.RAJPRADEEP ADITHYA RAJEEV HARI NARAYANAN T.(K/000381/2019) S.PARVATHI(K/000823/2015) Smt.Preetha.K.K, Sr.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:22079 WPC.No.43192/24 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the functioning of a commercial textile establishment managed by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, which according to the petitioner is in violation of the statutory stipulations and without obtaining licence. Today when the matter came up for consideration, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat submitted that, the establishment of the respondents 2 and 3 was granted licence on 16.12.2024. Even though the petitioner raised the question of insufficient parking facility for the said building, it is also submitted that on verification, it is seen that the parking facility offered by the said respondents are more than prescribed as per the rules. In such circumstances, I do not find any justification in entertaining this writ petition and this writ petition is accordingly closed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE DG/15.3.25 2025:KER:22079 WPC.No.43192/24 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 43192/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION DATED 8.9.2024 Exhibit P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION DATED 29.10.2024 Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.11.2024 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT SHOWING ISSUANCE OF EXHIBIT P4