Disposed

Thomas Abraham v. the Secretary

Kerala HC19 Nov 2010WP(C)/622/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC disposed of writ petitions regarding poultry farm operations. The court directed the local Panchayat authority to decide pending licence applications within 3 weeks, considering consent from the Pollution Control Board. Petitioners were restrained from operating farms until a final decision was made.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Panchayat Secretary to decide pending poultry farm licence applications within 3 weeks and communicate the decision. Petitioners restrained from operating farms until a final decision is

Thomas Abraham Vs the Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 622 of 2007(Y)

¶4

¶5

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶6

THOMAS ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, AGED 54 YEARS, KAVANAL HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA, KAROTTUKARA, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶9

THE SECRETARY, PUTHENVELIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHENVELIKKARA.

¶10

THE MEDICAL OFFICER, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, CHENGAMANADU.

¶11

THOMAS, S/O. VAREETH, KALLARACKAL HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA, KAROTTUKARA, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶12

K.K.TITUS, S/O. VAREETH, KALLARACKAL HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA, KAROTTUKARA, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI. SHANAVAS KHAN FOR R1

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.

¶16

W.P.(C) Nos.622 of 2007, 26393 & 30391 of 2010

¶17

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2010

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Common questions arise in these writ petitions. They were therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶20

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.622 of 2007 is a resident of Puthenvelikkara Grama Panchayat. He is aggrieved by the poultry farm being run by respondents 3 and 4 without obtaining the requisite licence from the local authority, viz., the Puthenvelikkara Grama Panchayat or the consent of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.

¶21

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26393 of 2010 is the third respondent in W.P.(C) No.622 of 2007. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26393 of 2010 is that though he had applied for a licence to the local authority to run a poultry farm way back in April, 2010 and remitting the prescribed fee, till date, orders have not been passed on the said application. The petitioner alleges that without taking a decision on his application, Ext.P5 notice dated 2.8.2010 was issued calling upon him to stop running the poultry farm. The petitioner contends that he possess the consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, that the report of

¶22

W.P.(C) Nos.622/2007 etc.

¶23

¶24

the Health Inspector is also in his favour, that the neighbours have also no objection in running the poultry farm, and therefore, Ext.P5 stop memo is liable to be set aside.

¶25

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30391 of 2010 is yet another resident of Puthenvelikkara Grama Panchayat. Like the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26393 of 2010, he is also running a poultry farm, and has raised similar contentions challenging Ext.P5 stop memo issued by the Panchayat.

¶26

I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents. I have also considered the pleadings and the materials on record. Shorn of details, the grievance voiced by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.622 of 2007 is that third respondent therein who is none other than the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26393 of 2010 and another are running poultry farms without obtaining a licence from the authorities. In W.P.(C) No.622 of 2007, this Court had passed an interim passed an interim order restraining respondents 3 and 4 therein from conducting the poultry farm unless they possess a valid licence issued by the Grama Panchayat. The grievance voiced by the petitioners in the other writ petitions is that though they had

¶27

W.P.(C) Nos.622/2007 etc.

¶28

¶29

applied for a licence from the local authority to run a poultry farm, till date, the licence has not been issued, notwithstanding the fact that they have received the consent to operate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the Health Inspector has certified that no nuisance will be caused, if they run a poultry farm. In my opinion, as the Panchayat is yet to take a decision in the matter, it will be premature for this Court to enter into the rival contentions and take a decision as to whether the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 26393 & 30391 of 2010 can be permitted to run poultry farms. The pleadings disclose that the Secretary of the concerned Grama Panchayat is yet to take a decision on the application submitted by them for licence to run poultry farms. The pleadings also disclose that as of now, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board has given consent to operate to the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.26393 & 30391 of 2010.

¶30

In such circumstances, I dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the Secretary of the Puthenvelikkara Grama Panchayat to consider the applications for licence submitted by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.26393 & 30391 of 2010 and take an appropriate decision thereon, having due regard to the objections raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.622 of 2007, the report

¶31

W.P.(C) Nos.622/2007 etc.

¶32

¶33

submitted by the Health Inspector and also the consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. A final decision on the applications for licence submitted by the said petitioners shall be taken expeditiously and in any event within 3 weeks from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before Secretary of Puthenvelikkara Grama Panchayat. The Secretary shall, after a decision is taken in the matter, communicate copies thereof to all the petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision taken by the Secretary pursuant to this direction, it will be open to them to challenge the same in appeal under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Till orders are passed as directed above, the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.26393 and 30391 of 2010 shall not run the poultry farms. Their right to run the same would depend on the decision to be taken by the Secretary.

¶34

P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.

¶35

nj.

Thomas Abraham v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Abraham v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shinu M.S. Vs K.P.S.C. & Ors.

Chapparappadavu Juma-Ath Palli Committee Vs Secretary Chapparappadavu Grama Panchaya

Edavacode Asokan Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Radhamony Vs Thiruvalla Municipality and Others

L.Aloshious Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

T.G.Sajeevan Vs the R.D.O. and Another