High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-08-10Writ petition disposed; Ext.P1 quashed to the e...

Libin Baby v. Vathikudy Grama Panchayat

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 6665/2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2021-08-10
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P1 auction notification is illegal and unsustainable in so far as it relates to Murikkassery and Thopramkudy; Ext.P1 is set aside to that extent. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed; Ext.P1 quashed to the extent it relates to Murikkassery and Thopramkudy; Ext.P1 illegal and unsustainable in those areas; remaining issues and extents not covered by the judgment are left to be inferred from the directions given earlier in the judgment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Libin Baby, S/o. Baby, aged 30 years, residing at Vattathottiyil House, Thopramkudi P.O., Pin 685 515

Respondents

Vathikudy Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary, Vathikudy, Idukki District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. M. Narendra Kumar
• Adv. P. S. Sandeep Krishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. K. C. Joseph, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

Libin Baby, a petitioner, challenges Ext.P1, a notification dated 09-03-2021 issued by the Vathikudy Grama Panchayat proposing to auction meat stalls. The petitioner, who runs meat stalls under the Panchayat, contends the Panchayat has meat markets only at Murikkassery Market and Thopramkudy Market; elsewhere, the Panchayat lacks facilities to auction meat vending rights, which would be illegal without statutory authorization. The respondent Panchayat relies on Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules to justify auctioning of meat vending. The core issue is whether local self-government institutions can auction the right to sell meat in areas where the Panchayat does not possess its own market. The court recalls Peter v. Perayam Panchayat, noting that Section 273 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act enables the Panchayat to farm out collection of fees, not to auction off meat vending rights, and cautions that the power to raise income must be within the Act and Rules. It cites Article 19(1)(g) to frame the fundamental right to practice a trade, and cites Rashid Ahmed and Salim v. Dy. Director of Panchayat to emphasize that such rights are subject to reasonable restrictions and to ensure the Panchayat does not overstep its statutory mandate. The court holds Ext.P1 illegal and unsustainable regarding Murikkassery and Thopramkudy, and disposes of the writ petition accordingly, setting Ext.P1 aside to that extent.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) RulesSection 273 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj ActArticle 19(1)(g) of the ConstitutionArticle 32 of the ConstitutionArticle 19(6) of the ConstitutionKerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).
Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) can be imposed for public interest.
Monopoly rights for public control may be permissible in certain regulated contexts (e.g., intoxicating liquor) if reasonably regulated by the State.
A Panchayat may raise income and exercise economic powers only within the framework of the Act and Rules and not beyond.
Auctioning rights over meat vendings must align with statutory authorization; collection of fees is distinct from vend rights.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that the Panchayat has its own meat markets only at Murikkassery and Thopramkudy; Ext.P1 attempts to auction meat vending in areas where the Panchayat does not operate a market, which is beyond statutory authority. Citing Peter v. Perayam Panchayat and Salim v. Dy. Director of Panchayat, it is urged that Section 273 concerns collection of fees, not sale/auction of meat vending rights, and hence Ext.P1 is illegal and unsustainable beyond the two markets. The right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) is fundamental but subject to statutory limits and public interest; auctions of essential trades must adhere to the Act and Rules and cannot be broadened into private vend rights, which would infringe the statutory framework and create unregulated competition.

Contentions of Respondents

The Panchayat contends it may raise revenue and regulate markets through auction under Rule 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules. It argues that the power to auction vending rights is within the Panchayat’s remit to manage and regulate markets and collect revenues, and that Ext.P1 is designed to facilitate market operations and revenue generation, consistent with the Act and Rules. It asserts that the right to trade is not absolved from regulatory control and that reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) and jurisprudence allow for such measures in the interest of public welfare and orderly market functioning.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Peter v. Perayam Panchayat	1996(1) KLT 362	Distinguished	The court uses it to illustrate that Section 273 pertains to collection of fees, not to auction of meat vending rights; Exts.P4 and P6 relate to fee collection, not vend rights, hence distinguishing the current application.
Salim v. Dy.Director of Panchayat	2003(3) KLT 516	Positive	Cited as authority showing Panchayat Raj Act does not authorize auction of meat vending rights in private markets; supports the petitioners’ position and is relied upon for illegality of Ext.P1 in relevant areas.
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana	1950(1) SCR 566	Positive	Used to illustrate that auctioning essential goods contracts may surpass reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) and thus justify regulatory limits.
Saghir Ahmed v. State of U.P.	AIR 1954 SC 7280	Positive	Cited for fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) precedent and its interpretation relevant to trade rights in the constitutional framework.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Libin Baby v. Vathikudy Grama Panchayat and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH TUESDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 6665 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **LIBIN BABY, S/O. BABY, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT VATTATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, THOPRAMKUDI P.O., PIN 685 515.** **BY ADVS. M.NARENDRA KUMAR SHRI.P.S SANDEEP KRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT:** **VATHIKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VATHIKUDY, IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN 685 604** **BY ADV SHRI.K.C.JOSEPH, SC.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) No.6665/2021 2 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 10[th] day of August, 2021 The petitioner who is conducting meat stalls at Vathikudy Grama Panchayat is before this Court challenging Ext.P1 notification issued by the respondent – Grama Panchayat. By Ext.P1 notification dated 09.03.2021, the Secretary to Vathikudy Grama Panchayat proposed to auction the meat stalls. The said Ext.P1 notification is under challenge. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the Panchayat has its own meat markets only in Murikkassery Market and Thopramkudy Market. In the rest of the places mentioned in Ext.P1 notification, the Panchayat does not have its own meat markets or stalls. If the Panchayat holds any meat market or meat stall, the Panchayat may have the power to auction the right to sell meat there. Otherwise the Panchayat cannot auction the WP(C) No.6665/2021 3 right to vend meat in any area of the panchayat. That will be illegal in the light of the judgment in **Peter v. Perayam Panchayat** [1996(1) KLT 362] and **Salim v. Dy.Director of Panchayat** [2003(3) KLT 516], contended the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent appeared and strongly opposed the prayers in the writ petition. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent-Panchayat. Apart from the steps taken by the Panchayat in auctioning the right to vend meat, the Standing Counsel relied on Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules to contend that the Panchayat has a right to auction vending of meat. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. The short question arising in this case is whether the Local Self Government Institutions can auction the right WP(C) No.6665/2021 4 to sell meat in any areas of the Panchayat where the Panchayat does not hold its own meat market/meat stall. The issue is no more in the area. This Court considered the said issue in **Peter v. Perayam Panchayat** (supra) wherein it was held that Section 273 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act enables the Panchayat to farm out collection of any fees due to it on such conditions as it thinks fit. Obviously, it deals only with collection of fees. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Panchayat can auction out the right to collect fees. But that is not what is done under Exts.P4 and P6 notifications. It cannot be denied that the Panchayat is well within its right to find sources to raise income. But it can be only according to law and not against the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 6. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution gives a fundamental right to citizen to practice any profess or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The right WP(C) No.6665/2021 5 guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) is a natural right to enter into or carry on any trade, profession or calling which every person has, as the member of a civilised society, anterior to and independent of any legislation or grant by the State [ **Saghir Ahmed v. State of U.P.** (AIR 1954 SC 7280)]. The right to conduct a trade is the fundamental right of a citizen. It can be controlled by the State in the interest of the public. There are certain trades which are inherently dangerous, eg., the business relating to intoxicating liquor – where the creation of a monopoly right in favour of an individual or individuals for the purpose of effective State control might be reasonable. An almost similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in **Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana** [1950(1) SCR 566]. There, the action of the Municipality Board in auctioning the 'contract for wholesale business in vegetables' was challenged under Art.32 of the Constitution. It was held that WP(C) No.6665/2021 6 “this certainly is much more than reasonable restriction on the petitioner as are contemplated by clause (6) of Art.19”. 7. The issue again came up for consideration before learned Single Judge, in **Salim v. Dy.Director of Panchayat** (supra). In the said judgment, this Court held that the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 does not authorise the panchayat to auction out the right to vend meat in private market. In view of the settled legal position as stated above, it has to be held that Ext.P1 auction notification of the respondent-Panchayat is illegal and unsustainable in so far as it relates to Murikkassery and Thopramkudy. Ext.P10 is set aside to the above extent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. **Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE** ncd/11.08.2021 The last two lines of paragraph 7 in judgment dated 10/08/2021 in WP(C)No.6665/2021(G) are corrected as follows: “In view of the settled legal position as WP(C) No.6665/2021 7 stated above, it has to be held that Ext.P1 auction notification of the respondent panchayath is illegal and unsustainable except in so far as it relates to Murikkassery and Thopramkudy. Ext.P1 is set aside to the above extent.” as per order in I.A.No.1/2021 in WP(C)No.6665/2021(G) dated 24/9/2021. Sd/Joint Registrar WP(C) No.6665/2021 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6665/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09-03-2021 PUBLISHED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE VATHIKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYAT** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF RE-AUCTION-CUM-QUOTATION NOTICE DATED 08.06.2021 WAS ISSUED FOR REMAINING 13 MEAT STALLS FIXING THE DATE AS 17.06.2021.**