JUDGMENT :- Antony Dominic, J. 1. Petitioners are residents of the 1st respondent Panchayat and their residential premises are near to Mullurkara Panchayat market. It appears that by Ext.P1 resolution passed by the Panchayat on 14/5/12, it was resolved to invite tenders for wholesale fish vending in the market. Accordingly, the tenders were received and by resolution dated 25/5/2012, Panchayat resolved to accept the offer made by the 5th respondent and to permit him to execute the agreement and to commence business on obtaining licence and deposit of security. 2. Ext.P2 dated 26/5/12 is the agreement that the 5th respondent has entered into with the 1st respondent Panchayat in pursuance to the resolutions mentioned above. It appears that immediately thereafter w.e.f. 27/5/12, 5th respondent started business which was without obtaining licence from the Panchayat or an NOC from the District Medical Officer. Complaints were made by the neighbouring residents and Ext.P3 is one of the representations made. The matter was considered by the Panchayat in its meeting held on 6/6/12, and it was resolved to instruct the 5th respondent to obtain licence for continuing his business. However, the 5th respondent conducted his business as before, as a result of which, the agitation also continued. As a result, Ext.P5 representation was made to the District Collector and Ext.P6 are the newspaper reports. 3. Finally, Ext.P7 report was submitted by the Health Inspector which inter alia indicate that most of the traders in the market do not have licence from the Panchayat. In the meantime, Panchayat appears to have issued Ext.R1 (a) communication to the District Medical Officer calling for a report. Based on this, the District Medical Officer submitted Ext.P8 report dated 23/6/12. In this report, it is stated that the fish vending in the market is unauthorised and that business is being carried on without any facility whatsoever in the market. It is also stated that the waste generated in the market is being dumped into the nearby thodu and that there is no facility installed for waste treatment. On this basis, the DMO recommended for closure of the market. 4. The contents of Ext.P8 report are also mentioned in Ext.P9, the file notings of inspection conducted by the Pollution Control Board. On this basis, the DMO recommended for closure of the market. 4. The contents of Ext.P8 report are also mentioned in Ext.P9, the file notings of inspection conducted by the Pollution Control Board. In the meantime, applications were made to the Panchayat under the Right to Information Act with a query as to whether the traders in the market are having licence issued under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act was made. To such a query, Ext.P10 reply dated 27/6/12 was given by the Panchayat confirming that none has obtained any licence. 5. Thus, petitioners therefore contend that the market lacks even basic facilities, which are disclosed in Ext.P8 report of the DMO and Ext.P9 file notings of the Pollution Control Board. Further according to the petitioners, the 5th respondent and the other traders in the market are continuing their business without obtaining licence as contemplated under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. In addition, petitioners also rely on Ext.P11, a circular issued by the Government of Kerala regulating disposal of wastes from markets like that of the market in question. On all these grounds, petitioners contend that the market is liable to be closed down and at any rate the 5th respondent should be ordered to discontinue the wholesale business forthwith. 6. In so far as the first respondent is concerned, Panchayat confirms that the market in question is established by them. They also confirm of having awarded the tender to the 5th respondent for conducting the wholesale fish business in the market. In so far as the licence in question is concerned, Panchayat confirms the requirement of the licence and at the same time confess that the 5th respondent has not obtained any such licence. Therefore they say that they have issued Ext.R1(C) notice dated 6/7/2012 to the 5th respondent. They have also produced Ext.R1 (E), the estimate which according to them is intended to improve the facilities in the market. Their failure to take further action in the matter is attempted to be justified by saying that it was on account of the pendency of this writ petition. 7. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, he says that he applied for licence on 18/6/2012 and that thereupon the Health Inspector issued Ext.R5 (b) suggesting that he should comply with the suggestions made therein. 7. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In this counter affidavit, he says that he applied for licence on 18/6/2012 and that thereupon the Health Inspector issued Ext.R5 (b) suggesting that he should comply with the suggestions made therein. It is stated that in order to comply with those conditions suggested by the Health Inspector, it was necessary to make certain constructions. He says that soon after he commenced the work, Panchayat issued Ext.R5(c) and (d) notices compelling him to stop the work. It is therefore stated that he has acted only bonafidely and it is only because of the action on the part of the Panchayat that he could not comply with the requirements specified by the Health Inspector or obtain licence from the Panchayat. 8. In so far as respondents 6 to 10 are concerned, they say that they are small time fish vendors who have been selling fish in the market in question for the last several years. It is stated that there have been no complaints from any quarter in so far as they are concerned and therefore the activities of the 5th respondent which led to the filing of this writ petition shall not cause any prejudice to them. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. What led the petitioners to file this writ petition is the wholesale business started by the 5th respondent in the market in question. In so far as the market is concerned, it should first be stated that the Panchayat has no case that they have obtained either the consent to establish the market or the consent to operate the market from the Pollution Control Board. The absence of such consents have been confirmed before this Court by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board also. In such circumstances, the market in question is functioning without complying with the requirements of the laws governing the abatement of pollution, and therefore, for that reason itself, it is illegal. 10. In so far as the 5th respondent is concerned, Panchayat confirmed that even in Ext.P1, he was granted permission to commence business subject to his obtaining licence under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 10. In so far as the 5th respondent is concerned, Panchayat confirmed that even in Ext.P1, he was granted permission to commence business subject to his obtaining licence under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Although in compliance with the said requirement, even according to the 5th respondent, he has applied for a licence on 18/6/2012, he has no case that he has obtained such a licence. Therefore, he could not have commenced business in the market. Despite having not challenged the requirement of the Panchayat that he should obtain licence and after having applied for the same on 18/6/2012, during the course of the arguments, counsel for the 5th respondent contended that in view of Section 221 and the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issuance of Licence and Control of Public and Private Markets) Rules 1996, a D&O licence under Section 232 of the Panchayat Raj Act is not required to be obtained. He made particular reference to Rules 5(2) and (3) of the Rules, which provide thus: "5. Leasing out of any portion of public market: (2) No article or thing, not included in the permit, shall be sold or exposed for sale in the site or stall taken on lease or any space appurtenant thereto. (3) No stall or space shall be assigned, sublet or otherwise parted with by the occupier without the written permission of the President." 11. Although the 5th respondent contends that in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rule, he is not required to obtain a licence under Section 232, a perusal of the Rule itself show that even under the Rule, a permit is required to be obtained by a person who is to conduct a business in a public market. That permit, is in Form No.1 appended to the Rules. 5th respondent does not have a case that such a permit has been obtained by him. Therefore, even in the matter of the Rules relied on by the 5th respondent, there is non compliance and in the absence of such a permit, he could not have commenced business in the market. 12. Even apart from that, I am not persuaded to think that a person who has been issued a permit under the aforesaid Rules is relieved of his obligation to obtain licence under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 12. Even apart from that, I am not persuaded to think that a person who has been issued a permit under the aforesaid Rules is relieved of his obligation to obtain licence under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The permit issued under the Rules 1996 referred to above only permits a person to carry on a trade in a public market. That trade can be a dangerous and offensive trade in terms of Section 232 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. If such a trade is dangerous and offensive in terms of the said rule, law requires him to obtain licence under the Rules. There is no provision either in the Act or elsewhere providing that when a person has obtained permit under one rule, he is relieved of the requirements of licences under the other applicable rules. 13. Further, facts in this case show that the very resolution of the Panchayat accepting the tender of the 5th respondent was subject to the condition that he should obtain licence. 5th respondent did not dispute that requirement, and if he had a dispute, he should have challenged that resolution of the Panchayat before the appropriate forum. Not only that he did not do so, he complied with the requirement by making an application dated 18/6/2012 for licence. 14. Therefore, the 5th respondent requires licence in law and he has applied for a licence also. In such circumstances, it is not open to the 5th respondent to raise this contention even. Therefore, this is a case where admittedly the 5th respondent has not obtained a licence from the respondent Panchayat. It is despite that failure that the 5th respondent commenced business on 27/5/12 with the full knowledge of the Panchayat. Panchayat knew it very well and inspite of it, Panchayat has not taken any action in the matter. This is inspite of wide spread agitation and protest from the local residents. In my view, the Panchayat has not abdicated its statutory duties in this case and therefore the Panchayat has to be blamed for this irresponsibility. 15. Suffice it to say that the wholesale fish business of the 5th respondent is an absolutely illegal one and therefore the business deserves to be stopped and the Panchayat shall take necessary action in this behalf forthwith. 16. 15. Suffice it to say that the wholesale fish business of the 5th respondent is an absolutely illegal one and therefore the business deserves to be stopped and the Panchayat shall take necessary action in this behalf forthwith. 16. However, these directions in the judgment for the closure of the business of the 5th respondent shall not stand in the way of the Panchayat in considering the application made by the 5th respondent for licence. Panchayat shall consider that application and pass orders thereon after complying with the requirements of the Health Department and the Pollution Control Board. 17. In so far as respondents 6 to 10 are concerned, they are petty traders who are doing small time fish vending and eking out their livelihood. Even before the 5th respondent came into the picture, they were doing their business in and around the market and there was no complaint against them. If this Court is to order them to stop the business, they will be virtually driven to poverty and such a situation cannot be allowed. Therefore, while I order the Panchayat to ensure the closure of the business by the 5th respondent, I do not pass such an order in so far as respondents 6 to 10 are concerned. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.