Disposed

Lalu T.C v. Avanur Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC18 Jul 2024WP(C)/18961/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought licence for a slaughter shop; the District Medical Officer cancelled his Health Inspector's sanitary certificate without hearing him. The court found a natural justice violation but held the decade-old application stale, directing submission of a fresh application to be considered by the Panchayat within three months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P12 effectively set aside on natural justice grounds; petitioner permitted to submit fresh application, Panchayat directed to consider and pass orders within three months.

Lalu T.C Vs Avanur Grama Panchayat — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 18961 OF 2016

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LALU T.C
AGED 45 YEARS
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. CHACKO,
THETTALIKKAL HOUSE,
AVANUR P.O. THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.
SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 AVANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶11

VELAPPAYA, P.O. MEDICAL COLLEGE,
THRISSUR- 680 596
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2THE SECRETARY
AVANUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VELAPPAY,
P.O. MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR- 680 596
3THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)
THRISSUR- 680 001
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR R1 & R2
K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN
SMT.C.K.REMANY
SRI.V.VENUGOPAL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P. (C) No.18961 of 2016

¶15

¶16

P.M. MANOJ, J

¶17

W.P.(C) No.18961 OF 2016

¶18

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2024

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

This writ petition was preferred challenging Ext.P12 order, whereby the 3^rd respondent has cancelled the report submitted by the Sanitary Inspector in favour of the Slaughter Shop. The writ petition inter alia seeks to quash Ext.P12.

¶21

The petitioner was trying to establish a slaughter shop for which he has a set up an installation as seen in Exts.P1 to P3. Thereafter, he approached the 1^st respondent-Panchayat as per Ext.P4 application. It is stated by the petitioner that the statutory clearances are also available around the slaughter house installed by the petitioner. Then he also obtained sanitation certificate from the Health Inspector, Primary Health Centre, Mulankunnathkavu as per Ext.P6. Thereafter by Ext.P7, he

¶22

W.P. (C) No.18961 of 2016

¶23

¶24

obtained a certificate of ‘Consent to Operate’ from the Pollution Control Board.

¶25

It is also submitted that the petitioner has produced sufficient documents, which shows the consents given by the neighbouring property owners. Even thereafter the Panchayat has issued Ext.P9 stop memo on the ground that the petitioner is operating his slaughter shop without any permission.

¶26

The petitioner has produced Ext.P10 interim order dated 05.04.2016 in W.P.(C) No.12992 of 2016 that there was an interim direction to the 1^st respondentPanchayat to consider and pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner. In compliance of the said direction as per Ext.P11, the Panchayat has informed that the application has been considered by the Panchayat and it is noticed that the District Medical Officer has cancelled the certificate issued by the Health Inspector. Therefore, only after curing this defect, the application for licence can be considered. In this regard the petitioner produced Ext.P12, which is the order issued by the 3^rd respondent-

¶27

W.P. (C) No.18961 of 2016

¶28

¶29

District Medical Officer stating that the certificate issued by the Health Inspector has cancelled, as the same is issued against the extant provisions of law.

¶30

In response to that respondents 1 and 2 preferred counter affidavit, whereby contented that the petition produced along with the writ petition is not the one submitted before the Panchayat. Instead the application produced as Ext.R1(a) was the application submitted by the petitioner. Moreover, the certificate issued by the Health Inspector is cancelled and the Consent to Operate certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board also time barred. Hence, at present the prayer of the petitioner to consider his application for slaughter house cannot be considered.

¶31

The counsel for the Panchayat also submitted that already the complaints has been preferred by the nearby residents against the installation of new slaughter house. Under such circumstances, this application cannot be considered. In response to that a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner defending the contentions

¶32

W.P. (C) No.18961 of 2016

¶33

¶34

taken by respondents 1 and 2 and also produce certain documents to show that many nearby residents has already given consent to the petitioner to operate the slaughter house before the District Collector.

¶35

I have heard the rival contentions and

¶36

considered the matter at length.

¶37

On considering the contentions raised across the bar, it appears that Ext.P12 order passed by the 3^rd respondent without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. In fact it is not specifically stated under what provision the certificate issued by the Health Inspector has been considered as an appellate authority and it is not specifically provided the specific provision under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat stalls) Rules, 1996 enables him to pass such order.

¶38

In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the principles of natural justice is violated, while issuing Ext.P12 order by the 3^rd respondent. At the same time, I am impressed by the contentions raised by the Panchayat that the application preferred was almost a decade before

¶39

W.P. (C) No.18961 of 2016

¶40

¶41

and the circumstances changed a lot. So, Ext.P4 application, the application stated to be submitted by the petitioner before the Panchayat or the application as per Ext.R1(a) cannot be considered at this point of time. Under such circumstances, I direct the petitioner to submit fresh application in compliance of the extant statutory provisions and the Panchayat shall consider the same on assessing the compliance of statutory requirements and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of submission of the application.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

SSS

¶45

W.P. (C) No.18961 of 2016

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18961/2016

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY` `SHED THAT` `PURPOSE OF`	`OF THE` `HAS BE` `SLAUGHT`	`PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE` `EN COMPLETED FOR THE` `ERING HOUSE.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY` `TANKS FOR`	`OF TH` `COLLECTI`	`E PHOTOGRAPHS OF TWO` `NG EFFLUENT WATER.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPY` `THE ELEVAT` `SHED.`	`OF TH` `ION OF`	`E PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING` `THE OPEN AIR OF THE`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE COPY` `BY THE PET`	`OF THE` `ITIONER`	`APPLICATION SUBMITTED` `ON 24.2.2016`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF THE`	`DOCUMENT NO. 2911/1997`
	`IN SURVEY` `THANGALLOR`	`NO. 33/` `VILLAGE`	`1P IN MYLADUMKUNNU IN` `.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF THE`	`SANITARY CERTIFICATE`
	`THAT HAS` `INSPECTOR`	`BEEN I` `OR`	`SSUED BY THE HEALTH` `SANITARY INSPECTOR,`
	`MULANKUNNA` `DATED 10.0`	`THKAVU,` `1.2016.`	`AVANOOR PANCHAYAT`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY` `PETITONER` `OF POLLUTI` `4.5.2016 W`	`OF THE` `BY THE` `ON CONT` `HICH IS`	`CONSENT GIVEN TO THE` `ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER` `ROL BOARD, THRISSUR ON` `VALID UPTO 31.01.2019`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF THE`	`CONSENT LETTERS GIVEN`
	`BY THE` `SLAUGHERIN`	`RESIDE` `G HOUSE.`	`NTS FOR CONDUCTING`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED` `23`	`OF THE` `.1.2016`	`LETTER NO. A3-48/16` `ISSUED` `BY` `THE`
	`RESPONDENT`	`PANCHAY`	`AT TO THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY` `IN W.P.(C` `HON'BLE CO`	`OF THE` `) NO.` `URT.`	`ORDER DATED 5.4.2016` `12992/2016 OF THIS`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY` `5229/2016` `2ND RESPON`	`OF` `DATED 1` `DENT TO`	`THE LETTER NO. A3-` `2.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE` `THE PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE COPY`	`OF THE`	`REPORT OF THE DISTRICT`
	`MEDICAL` `6.5.2016 I`	`OFFICE` `SSUED TO`	`, THRISSUR DATED` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`

Lalu T.C v. Avanur Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalu T.C v. Avanur Grama Panchayat

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

T.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Hic Abf Special Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Hic-Abf Special Foods Pvt.Ltd Vs State of Kerala

Savithri Amma Vs the Corporation of Kozhikode

P.T.Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

P.J.Mathew Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies of Kerala