JUDGMENT : Shaji P. Chaly, J. These appeals are preferred by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively in W.P.(C) No.9269 of 2021, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 5.1.2022, wherein the learned single Judge, after considering the rival submissions and taking into account Section 222 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter called, “Act, 1994” and other relevant provisions of the Act, 1994, allowed the writ petition and directed respondents 1 and 2 to take proceedings under Section 222(5) of the Act, 1994, to close down the private market run without licence in the property of the appellant in W.A.No.334 of 2022 - 4th respondent in the writ petition, expeditiously and in accordance with law. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeals are as follows; 3. The writ petitioners are residents, close to the buildings owned by the appellant Church, which according to the writ petitioners, is a private market as per the description contained under Section 222 of the Act, 1994 and the definitions given to the “market” and “private market” in the Act. It is the case of the 3rd petitioner that his boundary shares with the boundary of the said building complex. That apart, it is submitted that the property in which the alleged market situated is having an extent of about 1.69 Acres, wherein about 212 shop rooms are constructed. According to the petitioners, in spite of the earnest efforts made by them before the statutory authorities to take appropriate action, since no licence was secured by the Church for running a private market and inspite of the directions issued by this Court in Exhibit P1 judgment in W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2009 dated 29th May, 2009 and the judgment in W.P.(C) No.19426 of 2018 dated 19th November, 2019, the authorities have not taken any action, which persuaded the writ petitioners to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the petitioners as well as the people staying in close vicinity to the said building complex are materially affected due to the illegal business of meat & fish, and running of slaughter houses within the premises of the above said market without securing licence in contemplation of the provisions of the Act, 1994. It is further contended that the Panchayat and the Church Authorities are hand in glove with illegally letting out shop rooms within the market to certain persons and thereby, permitting them to run unlawful trade activities without securing licence; and in absentia of licence, such persons are not entitled to conduct business in the market. That apart, it is contended that the directions issued by this Court to the Panchayat in the judgments referred to above are overlooked by the Grama Panchayat and therefore, the petitioners had no other alternative than to approach the writ court seeking the directions for taking appropriate action against the perpetrators of law in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1994. 5. In fact, the appellant Panchayat as well as appellant Church have filed counter affidavits in the writ petition refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. The paramount contention advanced by the Panchayat is that consequent to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, the Panchayat has closed down all the illegal fish & meat vending shops with the aid and assistance of Station House Officer, Anthikkad Police Station, and thereafter, the vendors of the shops have duly submitted applications for licence along with requisite statutory documents. The Grama Panchayat, after duly considering the applications, granted licence to the vendors strictly in compliance with the statutory provisions. The licenses granted to various traders are produced as Exhibits R1(a) to R1(l). That apart, it is pointed out that a civil suit is pending consideration before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur and the licenses are granted subject to the result of that civil suit. 6. The appellant Church has filed a counter affidavit basically stating that the Church has not let out the premises to conduct fish, meat and live poultry business; however, it has let out buildings to various traders who have secured licence presently to conduct the business activities. That apart, it is submitted that the Church has no intention to secure license for their premises to conduct a market for selling fish, meat and live poultry and therefore, submitted that the contentions advanced in the writ petition contrary to the same, cannot be sustained. Other contentions raised in the writ petition that the Church is conducting a slaughtering house etc. are all denied. Other contentions raised in the writ petition that the Church is conducting a slaughtering house etc. are all denied. It is also submitted that the competent statutory authorities are at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the occupiers of the shopping complex, if they have not secured adequate licenses under law for vending, fish, meat, live poultry and other articles. 7. The learned single Judge, after taking into account the rival submissions advanced by the parties, have interpreted the definition of “market” defined under Sections 2(xxiii) and 222 of Act, 1994, and arrived at the conclusion that what is carried on in the property in question is a private market and therefore, it cannot be started or continued without obtaining licence from the Panchayat Authorities in contemplation of Section 222 of Act, 1994. It was also found that, even the vendors continuing business in the premises, after securing trade licence from the Panchayat cannot carry on with the business, in view of the prohibition of sale under Section 224 of the Act, 1994 that no person shall sell or expose for sale any animal or article in any unlicensed private market. Therefore, it is held that as long as the private market in question is under Section 222 of Act, 1994, no vendor can sell any animal or article in the market, even if such vendors are issued with trade licenses. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge, the writ petition is filed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for appellants Sri. V.N. Haridas and Sri. P.B. Krishnan, learned counsel for writ petitioners Sri. Anish K.M., learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand for the Station House Officer, Anthikkad, and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 9. The paramount contentions advanced by the appellants are; that the learned single Judge was not right in holding that the trade licenses secured by the traders themselves cannot dissuade the owner of the property and the buildings from securing a licence under Section 222 of Act, 1994 for running a private market; and that the interpretation placed by the learned single Judge on the statutory provisions to conclude that it is a private market is faulty and unsustainable. It is also the contention that the appellant Church has let out shop rooms to various traders and other business men and it has not intended to operate a private market. It is also pointed out that the State Government has constituted the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issuance of Licence and Control of Public and Private Markets) Rules, 1996, hereinafter called, “Rules, 1996”, exercising the powers conferred under Sections 221, 222 and 223 of the Act, 1994 and an analysis of the provisions of the Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1996 conjointly would show that the licence under Section 222 of Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1996 is not a mandatory requirement compelling an owner of a building complex to acquire it, since the provisions would exemplify that taking a licence under the provisions of Section 222 of Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1996, is optional. Therefore, it is submitted that, since the Church is not intending to conduct a private market, it is not mandatorily liable to secure the licence in contemplation of the law, as contended by the writ petitioners. 10. The basic contention advanced by the Panchayat in its appeal is that the writ petitioners have not impleaded the licensed vendors, who are affected persons, and therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. That apart, it is contended that the interpretation given by the learned single Judge to the relevant provisions, if accepted, every shopping complex where trade is conducted by the traders would come under the definition of “market” and thereby, the owner of the shopping complex would have to take a private market licence. 11. We have appreciated the rival submissions made across the Bar. Section 2(xxiii) of Act, 1994 defines a market, which states that market means, “any place set apart for ordinarily or periodically used for the assembling of persons for the sale or purchase of grain, fruits, vegetables, meat, fish or other perishable articles of food or for the sale, or purchase of livestock or poultry, or of any agricultural or industrial or industrial produce or any raw or manufactured products or any other articles or commodity necessary for the convenience of life provided that a single shop or a group of shops not being more than six in number shall not be deemed a market.” 12. Therefore, going by the provisions, so far as the definition of a market is concerned, in a specified place wherein more than six number of shops are constituted in a cluster or otherwise, and people assemble, it is a market. Section 2(xxxii) defines a private market to mean any market other than a public market and section 2(xxxiii) defines a public market to mean any market owned, constructed, repaired or maintained by a Village Panchayat. 13. In our considered opinion, if there are more than six number of shop rooms, which involves assembly of persons for the sale of various articles as is stated in Section 2(xxiii) would be a market. However, the question is whether the owner of the building complex exceeding six shop rooms is liable to take a licence for the private market as is provided under Section 222 of the Act, 1994 ? This we say, because in many of the building complexes, shop rooms are constructed and sold by the builder, wherein trade is conducted, satisfying the requirements specified in Section 2(xxiii) of Act, 1994. In such circumstances, the owner of the building complex, after the sale of the same to different persons and such persons conducting various trade, have no control over the same and therefore, even if such complexes can be said to be a market as defined under the Act, 1994, the builder of the complex has no power to seek a licence for running a private market nor individual shop owners who carries on with various trade, are not liable to seek any licence in view of the fact that as per section 2(xxiii), only if number of shops are exceeding six, it is deemed to be a market. Same is the situation even if a building complex is constructed and the shop rooms are let out by the owner of the building; the owner is letting out the same to each trader, who carries on business in the shop rooms individually. However, if a person to whom building is sold or let out carries on business in more than six shop rooms, it could be treated as a market liable to take licence as provided under Section 222 of Act, 1994. Section 222 of Act, 1992 reads thus : “222. However, if a person to whom building is sold or let out carries on business in more than six shop rooms, it could be treated as a market liable to take licence as provided under Section 222 of Act, 1994. Section 222 of Act, 1992 reads thus : “222. Licensing of private markets: - (1) No person shall open a new private 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 every year. (2) The village panchayat may, - (a) grant the licence applied for, subject to such conditions as it may think fit as to supervision and inspection, sanitation and water supply, weights and measures to be used, rents and fees to be charged and such other matters as may be prescribed. (b) refuse renewal of a licence if it is satisfied that such refusal is justified in public interest. (c) at any time suspend or cancel any licence granted under clause (a) for breach of any of the conditions thereof; (d) modify the conditions of the licence to take effect from a specified date; and (e) In a case where renewal of licence is refused under clause (b) the reasons therefor shall be intimated to the licensee and in case the licence cures such defects within the time prescribed such application shall be reconsidered. (3) No market fee shall be charged in evening markets (Anthichanthas) and the licence for the same shall be granted free of charge, but shall be subject to such conditions as to supervision and inspection, sanitation and weights and measures to be used as may be prescribed. (3) No market fee shall be charged in evening markets (Anthichanthas) and the licence for the same shall be granted free of charge, but shall be subject to such conditions as to supervision and inspection, sanitation and weights and measures to be used as may be prescribed. (4) When a licence granted under subsection (2) permits the licensee to levy any fee from the private market, a licence fee not exceeding one third of the gross income of the owner from the market in the preceding year shall be charged by the Village Panchayat: Provided that in the case of a new market the licence fees shall be fixed by the Panchayat at rates which shall not be less than the amounts given hereunder, namely:- (i) if the area of the market is not more than 0.1 hectare, rupees two hundred; (ii) if the area is more than 0.1 hectare but less than 0.2 hectare, rupees four hundred; (iii) and if the area is more than 0.2 hectare, rupees five hundred. (5) The Village Panchayat or any officer duly authorised by it may close a private market which is unlicensed or the licence for which has been suspended or cancelled, or which is held or kept open contrary to the provisions of this Act after prior intimation. 14. No doubt, the provisions of Section 222 make it clear that if any person is conducting a private market in rooms exceeding six that person is liable to acquire a licence in order to open a private market from the Village Panchayat. Here is a case where the appellant Church has let out more than 220 shop rooms and other areas for occupation of traders, offices etc.; however, the traders of fish, meat and live poultry apparently carried on business without securing trade and other licences from the Grama Panchayat/Secretary. It is admitted by the Panchayat in its counter affidavit before the writ court that on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in the judgments in the writ petitions referred to above, notices were issued to the traders to close down the shops and consequent to which, the traders have submitted applications for trade licenses and the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has issued the same and they are at present carrying on the business in accordance with law. However, the petitioners have a contention that apart from the traders conducting business in the shop rooms, many people are coming to the open yard of the large premises every day and conducting various business without securing licence from the Grama Panchayat, which is a clear violation of Section 222 of Act, 1994. 15. Before analysing the issues raised by the rival parties, we propose to consider the rules framed by the State Government to control the public and private markets, which was not brought to the notice of the writ court. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1996 deals with licensing of private markets. Sub-rule 1(i) of Rule 9 specifies that an application for licence to continue an existing private market or to open a new private market shall be made to the Panchayat in Form No.II affixed with a Court fee stamp of Rupees five. Other requirements are also specified in Rule 9 in order to consider the application. However, sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 is significant, which specifies that the applicant shall, in case the Panchayat decides to issue licence to open a new private market, remit the licence fee fixed by the Panchayat under sub-Section (4) of Section 222 and the Secretary shall, after remittance of such fee, issue licence, signed by him, in Form No.III. Sub-rule (4) makes it clear that licence for evening market shall be given in Form No.III free of charges and no market fee shall be levied in the evening market so sanctioned and rules 11 and 18 of the Rules, 1996 shall be applicable to them. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 makes it expressive that each licence granted under the Rule shall expire at the end of the financial year in respect of which licence has been granted. Rule 10 enables the licensee of a private market to collect fees at the rates not exceeding that mentioned in the Schedule to Rule 8. 16. Whatever that be, rule 11 enables the Panchayat to control a market, which reads thus : “11. Power of Panchayats to control markets.-(1) The Panchayat shall have the powers to expel from the market any person or his agent engaging in any activity contrary to the prevailing conditions and provisions relating to a market and also to prevent strictly such person or his agent from continuing to occupy the stalls or engaging in trade activities. Power of Panchayats to control markets.-(1) The Panchayat shall have the powers to expel from the market any person or his agent engaging in any activity contrary to the prevailing conditions and provisions relating to a market and also to prevent strictly such person or his agent from continuing to occupy the stalls or engaging in trade activities. (2) The Panchayat may, by notice, require the owner, occupier or licensee of private market to provide immediately the primary facilities such as passages, drainages, footpaths, latrines and urinals shown in the sketch submitted along with the application for licence, if not already provided. (3) The Panchayat shall have the power to suspend the existing licence or refuse to grant licence, if the facilities mentioned above are not provided within the period specified in the notice until such time so provided. (4) No person shall open or continue to keep open any such market after the licence is so suspended or refused.” 17. That apart, a licensee of a private market is liable for maintenance and audit of accounts of private markets and the licensees are entitled to impose licence fee by granting licence to brokers, commission agents etc. So also, liabilities are created on the licensees of private markets as per Rules 14 and 15 for providing facilities for grading of commodities and providing facilities for storing etc. Such licensees are also to observe the rules prescribed in the market for regulating the activities in the market. 18. Therefore, analysing the provisions of Section 222 and the provisions of the Rules, 1996, we are of the undoubted opinion that the owner of a building complex is liable to take a licence for running a private market, if the private market is conducted by the owner of the building complex. Here is a case where the owner of the building complex i.e., the Church, has raised a definite contention that it has let out the premises to various traders on monthly rental basis and it is for the traders to take necessary licenses in contemplation of the provisions of the Act, 1994 and other Rules constituted by the State Government to carry on with the sale of the meat, fish, poultry etc. 19. 19. As we have pointed out above, even though a cluster of shop rooms in a complex exceeding six in number where people assemble would come under the definition of market as contained under section 2(xxiii) of Act, 1994, that by itself cannot be a reason to insist an owner of a building complex to secure a licence for private market. There is no law prohibiting a building complex owner from letting out the building without adhering to the provisions of the Act, 1994. The owner of a building complex is at liberty to let out the building to any interested trader or occupier by securing monthly or yearly rent and there is no prohibition contained under any Act or law regulating the rent to be received by the owner of the building except some provisions under the Rent Control laws. 20. This we also say because, on a reference to the provisions of Section 222 and the Rules, 1996, in order to run a private market, various restrictions are created, including the collection of lease rent, licence fee etc. as per the schedule provided to Rule 8 of the Rules, 1996. That apart, as per Rule 21, the lease rent received is to be remitted in advance to the panchayat. In that view of the matter, we are of the definite opinion that the findings rendered by the learned single Judge that even if the buildings are let out by the building owner to various traders and they having secured trade licence, would not take away the liability of the owner of the building to secure a licence for running a private market, if the building complex comes under the definition of market provided under Act, 1994, may not be correct. But, at the same time, if the owner of the building complex and the appurtenant premises is conducting different trade exceeding six shop rooms by collecting licence fee or lease rent, definitely the owner of the building premises is liable to take a licence in contemplation of the provisions of Act, 1994 and the Rules, 1996. Because in that case the owner would be running a private market by permitting the traders to carry on everyday business in the premises, which could only be considered as running a private market by virtue of the imperative conditions contained under the Act and the Rules discussed. Because in that case the owner would be running a private market by permitting the traders to carry on everyday business in the premises, which could only be considered as running a private market by virtue of the imperative conditions contained under the Act and the Rules discussed. This we say because, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners has advanced a contention that apart from the traders occupying the shop rooms let out to them, various traders are doing the business of perishable and other articles exceeding six in number after payment of licence fee to the Church, which is an act prohibited under Section 224 of the Act, 1994, which reads thus : “224. Prohibition of sale in unlicensed private markets, etc. – No person shall sell or expose for sale any animal or article. – (a) in any public or licenced private market without the permission of a Village Panchayat or licensee, as the case may be, or of any person authorised by the village panchayat; or (b) in any unlicensed private market.” 21. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that interference is required to the judgment of the learned single Judge to the extent the learned single Judge has held that in spite of the trade licence secured by the lessees, the owner of the building complex has to secure a licence for the private market. Accordingly, we set aside the said finding and hold that if the buildings are let out by the owner of a building complex to various traders even if exceeding six numbers, the owner of the building complex is not liable to take a licence for running a private market. 22. However, we make it clear that if the appellant Church is permitting other traders to occupy the shop room or open premises exceeding six in number for conducting the business of perishable and other articles on licence fee basis or lease basis, the Church is liable to take a licence for running a private market. 22. However, we make it clear that if the appellant Church is permitting other traders to occupy the shop room or open premises exceeding six in number for conducting the business of perishable and other articles on licence fee basis or lease basis, the Church is liable to take a licence for running a private market. Bearing in mind the said aspect, we direct the appellant Grama Panchayat and the Secretary to ensure that traders of perishable articles, and other traders are carrying on their business activities after securing trade licence and other licenses required under the Act, 1994 and various other Rules constituted thereunder and any other laws for conducting the business of perishable articles like fish, meat, poultry, and butchering. Writ appeals are allowed partly, as above.