Disposed

K.P.Wilson v. Kalady Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC13 Feb 2019WP(C)/12337/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court disposed of the matter by directing the Secretary of the Kalady Grama Panchayath to take further action pursuant to previously issued show cause notices, if the poultry farm operated by the respondents is functioning without the requisite license or permission. The action must be taken within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directs the Secretary of the first respondent to take further action pursuant to notices P7, P8, P9 within one month if the poultry farm is functioning without a requisite license.

K.P.Wilson Vs Kalady Grama Panchayath — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 24TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 12337 of 2015

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.P.WILSON AGED 43 YEARS S/O. PAPPU, KANJOOKARAN HOUSE, WARD NO. 3, POTHIYAKKARA, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 K.P. GIGI POULOSE, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. POULOSE, KUNIYIL VEEDU, WARD NO. 3, POTHIYAKKARA, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 KALADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN- 683504.

¶12

2 THE MEDICAL OFFICER PUBLIC HEALTH CENTRE, KALADY, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 683504.

¶13

3 P.V. SHAJI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, PATTATHI HOUSE, WARD NO. 2, POOTHIYAKKARA, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.PIN- 683504.

¶14

4 SHIJI SHAJI, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.P.V. SHAJI, PATTATHI HOUSE, WARD NO. 2, POOTHIYAKKARA, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 683504.

¶15

5 P.V. JOSE, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY, PATTATHI HOUSE, WARD NO. 2, POOTHIYAKKARA, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 683504.

¶16

WP(C).No. 12337 of 2015

¶17

-2-

¶18

6 ANIE JOSE, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.P.V.JOSE, PATTATHI HOUSE, WARD NO. 2, POOTHIYAKKARA, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 683504.

¶19

7 JOSE, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, PALLASSERI HOUSE, WARD NO. 3, POTHIYAKKARA, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶20

8 BEENA JOSE, AGED 40 YEAS, W/O. JOSE, PALLASSERI HOUSE, WARD NO. 3, POTHIYAKKARA, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 683504.

¶21

BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM SRI.N.RAJESH SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER.SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU.T.K

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C).No. 12337 of 2015

¶26

-3-

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The writ petition has been filed alleging that in spite of the Panchayat having initiated action for closing down a poultry farm being conducted by respondents 3 to 8, without valid licence from the Panchayath and permission from the other statutory authorities, no further action has been taken. Exts.P7, P8 and P9 show cause notices were issued by the Panchayat way back in the year 2014. As per Ext.P9, which is dated 30.9.2014, the Panchayath had put the party respondents on notice that unless sufficient cause is shown, their unit will have to be closed down.

¶29

In the nature of the relief sought in the writ petition, I deem it appropriate that the writ petition be disposed of directing the Panchayath to take further action pursuant to the notice already issued, if the unit in question is functioning without the requisite licence.

¶30

WP(C).No. 12337 of 2015

¶31

-4-

¶32

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Secretary of the first respondent to take further action pursuant to Exts.P7, P8 and P9, in accordance with law, if the poultry farm conducted by respondents 3 to 8 is still functioning without requisite permission or licence. Such action, if warranted, shall be taken by the first respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

Scl/13.2.

WP(C).No. 12337 of 2015

¶38

-5-

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24/04/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24/04/2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶43

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 24/04/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶44

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 03/05/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶45

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 26/06/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶46

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 3 (4) DATED 01/09/2014 OF THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶47

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30/09/2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶48

WP(C).No. 12337 of 2015

¶49

-6-

¶50

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30/09/2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30/09/2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10/10/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10/10/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶51

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10/10/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

K.P.Wilson v. Kalady Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Wilson v. Kalady Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijeesh I.R. Vs State of Kerala

P.R. Mini Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

K.a.Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Antony Prince Vs State of Kerala

Tholur Hamsa Vs State of Kerala

Pathuthara Hussain Haji Vs the Porur Grama Panchayath