Petitioner sought direction to respondent Panchayath to act on a stop memo against a party respondent for conducting an unlicensed poultry farm. Court disposed petition upon undertaking that farm would not continue without licence.
Writ petition disposed of by recording undertaking from fourth respondent not to conduct poultry farm without a licence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2012/29TH ASHADHA 1934
WP(C).No. 11967 of 2012 (U)
PETITIONER :
THRESIA, W/O. KUNJUVAREETH, CHIRACKAL AIROOKARAN HOUSE PADUAPURAM.P.O, PANTHACKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN
SMT.P.B.WAHIDA SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SMT.C.SEENA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
2. THE TAHSILDAR
ALUVA - 683 101.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
4. VARGHESE,
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SEREENA GEORGE R4 BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 11967 of 2012 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT-P1-PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P2-PHOTOCOPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 05/03/2012.
EXHIBIT-P3-PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/04/2012.
EXHIBIT-P4-PHOTO COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18/04/2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
ANTONY DOMINIC,J
W.P.(C)No.11967 of 2012
Dated this the 20th day of July, 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the first respondent and the counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
2. The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondent Panchayath to take action on Ext.P2, a stop memo issued against the party respondent preventing him from conducting a poultry farm without licence.
3. When the case was taken up today, counsel for the fourth respondent undertook that without a licence obtained from the first respondent, the poultry farm will not be conducted and I record the same.
4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of recording the undertaking on behalf of the fourth respondent and clarifying that this judgment shall not prevent him from making application to the first respondent for licence and conduct the poultry farm, if such a licence has been obtained.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
ln
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent Panchayath is directed to take action on a stop memo issued against a party respondent preventing him from conducting a poultry farm without a licence.
THRESIA
KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
THE TAHSILDAR
THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VARGHESE
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
