Judgment :- In view of the nature of the issue, that is agitated, these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner in writ petition No.16043 of 2003 had submitted an application as Ext.P1 on 17-04-2003 requesting the Kottamkara Grama Panchayat that a licence may be issued to him to conduct a meat stall in a private market at karikode. His grievance is that this was not responded, but Ext.P2 had been sent to him, that since the Panchayat had decided to auction out the right of vending meat in a temporary shed at Karikode it may be possible for him to partake in the auction by depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- as EMD. The petitioner had come at this stage and he has impleaded the 4th respondent, who according to him was the successful bidder. An interim order has been passed where under confirmation of such auction had been stayed. 3. The case of the petitioner rests on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Peter v. Perayam Panchayat (1996 (1) KLT 362). The petitioner submits that what had been requested for as a licence to vend meat in a private market and it was the same stall that was proposed to be auctioned by the Panchayat by way of Ext.P2, though it had been stated that the acution was for the right tosell meat in a temporary stall. According to him, the panchayat had no private market at Karikode and in fact they had a public market situated in a different palce and the unathorised entry to a private market was irregular as known to them and Ext.P1 application was liable to be disposed of on merits. 4. In WPC No. 16246/2003, the claim is slightly different. In the private market, owned by Smt. Syamala Nityanandan (third respondent herein), the petitioner had been conducting astall for vending meat for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. An application for renewal of the liecence, for the year 2003-2003, had been submitted by him before the first respondent-panchayat. Ext.P6 is the licence that had been issued to him for the year 2002-2003. But, he had been denied permission for renewing the arrangement and the reason projected by the Panchayat was that he had fallen in arrears in the matter of payment of licence fee for the past year. Ext.P6 is the licence that had been issued to him for the year 2002-2003. But, he had been denied permission for renewing the arrangement and the reason projected by the Panchayat was that he had fallen in arrears in the matter of payment of licence fee for the past year. Of course, at that time, he had filed another Original petition before this Court (O.P.No.111375/2003), and by judgment dated 11-4-2003, this Court directed the Panchayat to consider the application of the petitioner. But he has been issued with Ext.P5 order, practically holding that his application for licence for the year 2003-2004 is rejected. 5. Sri. Saifudeen (Petitioner in WPC No. 16246/03) is aggrieved that he had been misled in the matter from they very inception. According to him, he was running a meat stall in the Karikode private market and the Panchayat had during the previous years conducted an unauthorised auction of such right s in the private market and he had been forced to part with substantial amounts. It was totally unauthorised and again for the year concerned his application for revewal of the licence had been rejected for altogether irrelevant reasons. The submission of the petitioner in short is that in respect of a private market the Grama Panchayat had no right to poke its nose and the application for licence or renewal of the same alone should have been appropriately considered. He submits that the Panchayath had misled the gullible by posing that they possessed such rights and had enriched themselves unjustly. He had been denied right to sell meat, which is a fundamental right for him, quite arbitrarily. 6. The petitioners had relied on the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Section 221 of the Act deal with establishment of public markets. The provisions are extracted herein below. "221. Public Markets - (1) The Village Panchayat may, provide places or use as public markets or close any such market or part thereof. All public markets within a villiage panchayat area shall be under the control and management of the Village Panchayat. Section 221 of the Act deal with establishment of public markets. The provisions are extracted herein below. "221. Public Markets - (1) The Village Panchayat may, provide places or use as public markets or close any such market or part thereof. All public markets within a villiage panchayat area shall be under the control and management of the Village Panchayat. (2) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, the Village Panchayat may parcel out any portion of a public market and lease such parcel or parcels by auction or otherwise or levy any one or more of the following fees in any public market at rates not exceeding the maximum prescribed, namely:- (a) fees for the use of, or for the right to expose, goods for sale in such market; (b) fees for the use of shops, stalls, pens or stands in such market; (c) fees on vehicles bringing any goods for sale in such market or on goods; (d) fees on animals brought for sale into or sold in such markets; and (e) licence fees on brokers, commission agents, weighmen and measures practicing their calling in such market. (f) Places used as public markets shall be properly maintained by the Village Panchayat and no part thereof shall be used for any purpose other than those related to the functioning of the market." In respect of private markets, the relevant provision is section 222. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that no person shall open a new market or continue to keep open a private market unless he has obtained a licence from the village Panchayat to do so. Such licence shall be got renewed by the licensee year to year. There is no dispute that a private market has been licensed to function and the petitioners in both the writ petitioner are making applications for vending meat in such private market. Relying on Section 222 (4) of the Act, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when a licence is granted to run a private market, the right of the Village Panchayat is only to insist for a licence fee not exceeding one third of the gross income of the owner of the market in the preceding year, if the market owner is authorised to levy any fee. Of course they do not dispute that it may be possible for the Panchayat to supervise and inspect the sanitation and water supply, stipulation to weights and measures etc., which are to be maintained and charged, but beyond these they had no power or jurisdiction to throw their weight. 7. Section 223 refers to levy of the licence fees of private markets. The right is given to the licensee, who is the owner of the private market. Section 224 provides that no person shall sell or expose for sale any animal or article in any public or licenced private market without the permission of the Village Panchayat or licensee, as the case may be, or of any person authorised by the Village Panchayat. 8. When we read section 222 along with section 224 of the Act, it could be gatherable that if a private market owner has obtained a licence, it may even be possible for such a person to issue a licence to any third party who may approach them for the grant of such permission. That is the position as seen from section 224 (a) of the Act. In the present case, the private market owner is not shown as reluctant to grant such a licence. The Panchayat, under section 225 of the Act, has power to prohibit sale or exposure for sale of animals or articles in or upon a public road or place. The petitioners have made applications to the Panchayat and the said Local Authority is reluctant to grant licence on the plea that taking note of the possibility of erosion of revenue it may be possible to withhold such licence. The apprehension of the Panchayath apparently is that when they obtain a heavy licence fee from the public market run by them, a private entrepreneur would be able to attract good business since such high fee may not be levied. This would held to a position that there are no takers for the stalls of the Panchayath. 9. As found from the statute book, the issue has to be tackled from a different angle. However, I may deal with the arguments urged. The contingency of loss in revenue may not be sufficient enough for a Panchayath to deny the right a carry on a business to a private individual if he is so interested. 9. As found from the statute book, the issue has to be tackled from a different angle. However, I may deal with the arguments urged. The contingency of loss in revenue may not be sufficient enough for a Panchayath to deny the right a carry on a business to a private individual if he is so interested. He need stick to the parameters prescribed, as such rights are guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of he Constitution of India. A law or practice annihilating such rights cannot be recognised. 10. Rules have been framed under sections 229, 230 and 231 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act by S.R.O.289/96, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act by S.R.O. 289/96, the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules, 1996. Rule 38 prescribes for location of meat stalls and rules 39 and 40 refer to the regulatory measures which the Panchayat is authorised to employ. However, the Panchayat Raj Act or the Rules does not authorize the Panchayat to auction out the right for vending meat in a private market. Existence of private markets have been recognised, and there is also no taboo against granting fresh licence to new private markets. 11. This position had to be conceded by Sri.T.K.Chandramohan Das, who had entered appearance for the second respondent-Panchayat. Also these aspects had been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Peter’s case (cited supra). This Court had indicated that under section 222, it was clear that so far as private markets are concerned, there is no right for the Panchayat to auction out the right to conduct business there at all. Of course, at the time of rendering of the judgment in Peter's case rules under the new Panchayat Raja Act had not come, but the rules thereafter promulgated substantially are similar to the Rules which had been referred to. In most definite terms the Division Bench had held that the Panchayat has no right to licence stalls in respect of private markets. It was the markets. It was the market that was licenced. The Court had cautioned that if the argument of the Panchayat is accepted, then they can even auction out the right to start the business in biscuits, chilies and coffee and tea shops, only for the reason that they had also been included in the Schedule appended to the Rules. It was the market that was licenced. The Court had cautioned that if the argument of the Panchayat is accepted, then they can even auction out the right to start the business in biscuits, chilies and coffee and tea shops, only for the reason that they had also been included in the Schedule appended to the Rules. Therefore, the position is clear that so far as licensing of a shop in a private market is concerned, the Panchayat was not having any residuary rights. 12. It is conceded that the market in question is a private market. It is clear from the orders passed orders market. It is clear from the orders passed by the Panchayat (Ext.P5 in WPC No. 16246 of 2003) that the Panchayat was aware that the application for licence was in respect of a stall in a private market. The resolution, referred to in Ext.P5, I have to observe, goes on after irrelevant reasons for rejecting the application. It is stated that if such meat stalls are granted, that may reduce income that may be coming in favour of the Panchayat. It is also stated therein that availability of meat in different places, may adversely affect the health of general public. In the matter of slaughter houses there is deep control and necessity for such control, but restrictions in the matter of meat stall is wholly misconceived. So long as the persons are carrying on the trade, in hygienic manner and subject to the right of the Panchayat to supervise and issue instructions for properly carrying out the trade, the proliferation is no reason for withholding licences. This Court is expected only to take note of the scheme of the Act, and the constitutionality of the prescription. Financial prospects of the Panchayath are not germane to such scrutiny. 13. At this juncture, it may also be relevant to note the existence of the following Rules as well, framed under the relevant Sections. SRO 76/96 refers to the Rules framed for licensing Dangerous and Offensive Rules (D&O Rules). SRO 570/96 pertains to the formalities in respect of Control and Licensing of Public and Private Markets (C&L Rules). Under the D & O Licence Rules, in respect of the schedule activities, Rule 4 provides that licence from the Panchayat is mandatory. Only prescribed fee is leviable, and licence is valid for one year. SRO 570/96 pertains to the formalities in respect of Control and Licensing of Public and Private Markets (C&L Rules). Under the D & O Licence Rules, in respect of the schedule activities, Rule 4 provides that licence from the Panchayat is mandatory. Only prescribed fee is leviable, and licence is valid for one year. By Rule 4 of the C&L Rules it is permissible for a licensee of a private market to segregate special area or stall for different commodities. There is, of course, control for the Panchayat to certain region of the activities of a licensee. Under Rule 18(4) in respect of sale of meat, therefore, licence from the Panchayat also is essential. In respect of the petitioners, therefore the question is whether the Panchayat has imposed restrictions, over and above those what could have legally been prescribed. 14. From the discussions aforementioned above, the following principles emerge, as governing the situation. i). The licensee of the Private Market is the competent person to grant licence for sale or exposure for sale of any animals or articles in or upon such market. But, a vendor has also to apply and get a licence under the D&O Rules. ii). Licensee of a private market may levy fees in any private market for use of or right to expose goods for sale in such market, and levy fee for other facilities, admissible under Section 223 of the Act. iii). The Panchayat is authorised to insist for only one-third of the gross income of the owner from a private market, when permission is granted to him fro levying licence fee. iv). A village Panchayath is authorised to levy fee only in respect of a public market in respect of right to expose goods for sale in such market. v). Only public markets within the Panchayath Area are under the control and management of the Panchayath. Supervision at limited areas however could be made in respect of private markets. vi). The Village Panchayath is authorised to parcel out any portion of a public market, and lease such parcels by auction or otherwise on levy of fee, as stipulated by Section 221 of the Act. This right is not there for them in respect of a stall of private market. vii). vi). The Village Panchayath is authorised to parcel out any portion of a public market, and lease such parcels by auction or otherwise on levy of fee, as stipulated by Section 221 of the Act. This right is not there for them in respect of a stall of private market. vii). Rules 38 to 40 of the Slaughter Houses Rules have to be observed by a vendee, irrespective of whether or not the shop is in a public or private market. 15. Consequently, in a private market, the market owner has authority and discretion to grant licence to persons who might make application for such purpose. In view of the nature of trade, the petitioners are also obliged to get licence from the Panchayat. The Panchayath therefore had exceeded in its power and jurisdiction in issuing Ext.P1 (W.P.(C).No. 16043/2003) by proposing to auction out the right for vending meat at karikode, which was obviously a place coming inside a private market (though improperly described). It was again an act without jurisdiction to insist the petitioner to take a licence from Panchayath for vending meat in a private market for the year 2002-2003, by auction proceedings. This interfered with his rights to carry on the trade during 2003-2004 when what was required was only a licence under the D & O Rules, and only the prescribed fee could have been levied. The petitioner will have therefore a right to approach the Panchayath for refund of the amount which has been received from him, without authority of law. 16. In view of my findings as above, so long as the petitioners are interested in vending meat, they are to approach the Private Market Owner, in view of Section 224(a) of the Act. Of course, a licence as envisaged under the D & O Rules also should be required, but it appears to be only a formality. But, I have to observe that the Panchayat has harassed the petitioners and drawn the breath out of their lungs. This was wholly unwarranted. So as to avoid a possible dispute, the petitioners may make applications afresh, and if presented within a month, they have to be taken as validly submitted. Orders are to be passed thereon within two weeks of receipt thereof. 17. This was wholly unwarranted. So as to avoid a possible dispute, the petitioners may make applications afresh, and if presented within a month, they have to be taken as validly submitted. Orders are to be passed thereon within two weeks of receipt thereof. 17. Before concluding, I may also briefly refer to the impact of Rules 38 to 40 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules, 1996. The said rules deal with location of meat stalls and their maintenance, which are situated within a panchayath, within or not in a market. The expression used in Rule 38 is that such place should be 'approved' by the Panchayath. In respect of a stall in a private market, therefore what is contemplated is only an approval of the place under the Rules. Being a dangerous and offensive trade, the incumbents may have to obtain a licence. It is only for the reason that such a trade comes within the schedule of the Rules. 18. The Original Petitioner are disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.