Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THALASSERY TALUK, FISH DISTRIBUTORS versus KANNUR DISTRICIT MUSSEL DISTRIBUTORS &

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THALASSERY TALUK, FISH DISTRIBUTORS v. KANNUR DISTRICIT MUSSEL DISTRIBUTORS & - WA No. 444 of 2005 [2007] RD-KL 7092 (3 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 444 of 2005()

1. THALASSERY TALUK, FISH DISTRIBUTORS
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KANNUR DISTRICIT MUSSEL DISTRIBUTORS &
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, P.M.KAMARUDHEEN,

3. THE TREASURER P.HAMZA, AGED 39 YEARS,

4. THALASSERY MUNICIPALITY,

5. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES,

6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURENDRAN

For Respondent :SRI.C.KHALID

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :03/04/2007

O R D E R

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag.C.J. & M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

W.A.No.444 OF 2005 Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2007

JUDGMENT

K.S.Radhakrishnan, Ag.C.J. This appeal is preferred by a third party aggrieved by the latter part of the direction that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.27618/2004 shall not be harassed in case they are conducting the vending in a proper and hygienic manner without causing any nuisance to the public. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the said direction is contrary to Ext.P7 judgment wherein this court has directed implementation of Ext.P1 notification dt. 25.11.1990. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent Municipality it is stated that after the impugned judgment about 21 Mussel vendors are conducting sale outside the market and beside the road and that their applications cannot be entertained at this stage for want of space and the Municipality has not so far taken a decision due to these circumstances. It is also submitted by the standing counsel for the municipality that the municipality will take steps to provide more space by constructing additional area and those persons can be accommodated on seniority basis when space is available and that the W.A.444/2005 2 direction is given without taking note of Ext.P7 judgment. We make it clear that the impugned judgment will not confer any right on the petitioners to conduct vending unless it is permitted by the municipality. With the above observation writ appeal is disposed of. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, (Ag.CHIEF JUSTICE) M.N.KRISHNAN,

(JUDGE)

mt/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.