Disposed

Pauly Augustin v. the Secretary, Parakkadavu Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC6 Jul 2022WP(C)/598/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court directed the 1st Respondent (Panchayath) to consider the Petitioner's application for renewing his poultry/cattle farm license within two weeks, with a show of cause to the 2nd Respondent, while leaving other contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent to consider the application for renewal of the license within two weeks.

Pauly Augustin Vs the Secretary, Parakkadavu Grama… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 598 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

PAULY AUGUSTIN AGED 52 YEARS S/O.AGASTHY, MELAPILLI HOUSE, PULIYANAM P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572. BY ADVS. RAJIT SMT.LEKSHMI P. NAIR

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PULIYANAM ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 579. 2 M.A.VARGHESE, S/O.AUSEPH, MELAPIPILLIL HOUSE, PULIYANAM P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683 572. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RENJITH SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM, SC

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

WP(C) NO. 598 OF 2021

¶11

¶12

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶13

-----------------------------W.P.(C).No. 598 of 2021

¶14

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 06^th day of July, 2022

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The above writ petition is filed with the following

¶17

prayers:

¶18

“(i) Call for the records leading up to Ext-P6 and quash Ext-P6 by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction.

¶19

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1^st Respondent to consider the application for license, as evidenced by Ext-P5, submitted by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

¶20

(iii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to a deemed license in respect of the application filed by the petitioner for license, as evidenced by ext-P5 and direct the 1^st respondent to issue necessary certificate to the said effect.

¶21

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the 1^st respondent, restraining the 1^st respondent from initiating the removal of the Cattles/cows from M/s Anna Poultry Farm, pending consideration of the application of renewal submitted by the Petitioner.

¶22

(v) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this

¶23

¶24

WP(C) NO. 598 OF 2021

¶25

Hon'ble Court.”[SIC]

¶26

When this writ petition came up for

¶27

consideration, the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wants to submit a fresh application for getting permission for conducting a cattle farm because of the amendment in the Building Rules. Therefore, the prayers in the writ petition are probably infructuous. The petitioner produced Ext.P11 order passed by the 1^st respondent, in which it is stated that, since the case is pending before this Court, the application for poultry farm can not be considered. That stand of the Panchayath can not be accepted. The prayer in the writ petition is for entirely a different thing. The petitioner has got a case that he was having license to conduct a poultry farm. His application for renewal of the license is not considered by the Panchayath. The Panchayath is bound to consider the application for renewal of the license, in accordance to law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶28

Therefore this writ petition is disposed of in the

¶29

¶30

WP(C) NO. 598 OF 2021

¶31

following manner:

¶32

i. All the contentions regarding the license

¶33

required for the cattle farm is left open.

¶34

ii. There will be a direction to the 1^st

¶35

respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for renewing the license for the poultry farm, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

iii. Before passing final order, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the 2^nd respondent by the 1^st respondent.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

¶39

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶40

WP(C) NO. 598 OF 2021

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 598/2021

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT GRANTED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL CERTIFICATE OF EXT.P1 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE LICENSE
	DATED 25.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING FACT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING THE
	RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR LICENSE DATED 27.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER DATED 30.12.2020.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CERTIFICATE KLMSME-8651/2021 ISSUED
	BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT
	INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM DATED 15.11.2021.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS EXHIBIT P9.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS EXHIBIT P10.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
	31/03/2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH EXHIBIT P11.

¶45

¶46

WP(C) NO. 598 OF 2021

¶47

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2005-2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS EXHIBIT P12.

¶48

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶49

EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE HEALTH OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17-07-2020.

¶50

EXHIBIT R2(B) THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF PRESENT CATTLE SHED.

¶51

EXHIBIT R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY REGISTERED POST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY MY ADVOCATE DATED 21-12-2020

¶52

EXHIBIT R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 2203-2022 OF THE FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, PARAKKADAVU DATED 22-03-2022.

¶53

EXHIBIT R2(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 0903-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶54

EXHIBIT R2(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1605-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶55

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶56

EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶57

EXHIBIT R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT DATED 02.11.2020 TO THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶58

EXHIBIT R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.10.2020 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R1(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

¶59

¶60

WP(C) NO. 598 OF 2021

¶61

6.11.2020 OF VETERINARY SURGEON KURUMASSERY.

¶62

EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 20.01.2021.

¶63

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶64

//TRUE COPY//

¶65

PA TO JUDGE

Pauly Augustin v. the Secretary, Parakkadavu Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pauly Augustin v. the Secretary, Parakkadavu Grama Panchayath

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

Sister Remya Vs State of Kerala

Jagadamma P Vs State of Kerala

Shajprasanth K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Parappurath Kanakathan Vinod Vs Pinarayi Grama Pancjayat

P.M.Jose and Others Vs Nedumbassery Grama Panchayat

Kunhimoosa Vs State of Kerala