Writ petition challenging a Tribunal order confirming the Panchayat's direction to stop an unlicensed slaughter house functioning within prohibited distance of dwelling houses and polluting nearby wells. The High Court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the petition.
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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 24449 OF 2015
PETITIONER:
T.P.LONAPPAN AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. POULOSE, THEETHAYI HOUSE, ELINJAPRA, VIA
CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 721.
BY ADV SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2KODASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KODASSERY GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, CHATTIKKULAM, THRISSUR - 680 721.
3 SRI.BIJU M.D
MECHERIL HOUSE, ELANJIPRA, CHALAKKUDY,
TRICHUR DISTRICT - 680 728. (IS REMOVED FROM THE PARTY
ARRAY AND SUBSTITUTED BY SHRI.M.U. JOHN, S/O ULAHANNAN,
AGED 68 YEARS, MANGALAM KUNNEL HOUSE, ELINJIPRA P.O.,
CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680728, AS PER ORDER
DATED 26/05/2016 IN IA.NO.13608/2015).
4 THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
*ADDL R5 VINODH KAVUNGAL
S/O ANTO KAVUNGAL, AGED 37 YEARS, ELINJIPRA P.O.,
CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680728.
*(ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26/05/2016
IN.NO.13608/2015).
BY ADVS.
SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
SUNIL N.SHENOI
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP
WP(C) NO. 24449 OF 2015 2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 24449 OF 2015 3
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
----------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.24449 of 2015
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed with the following prayers:-
i) Call for the records leading to the case and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P11 order passed by the Tribunal of Local Self Government Institutions,
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to implement the Agreement vide Ext. P3 in accordance with law,
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to conduct inspection in the new property purchased by the petitioner and grant approval to Ext. P12 plan to conduct a slaughter house,
iv) pass such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
and
v)award costs.
2nd respondent Panchayat vide Ext.P1 licence. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 licence has been renewed on yearly basis and Ext.P1 is the latest licence issued by the 2nd respondent Panchayat. When there was a notice from the 2nd respondent, the petitioner appraoched this Court by filing W.P.(C)
WP(C) NO. 24449 OF 2015 4
No.13179/2012 and as per Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the objection of the petitioner and pass final orders. As per the directions of this Court, the 2nd respondent considered the application of the petitioner and was pleased to pass Ext.P6 order directing the petitioner to stop functioning of the slaughter house. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner appraoched the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and preferred Ext.P7 appeal. The Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances dismissed the appeal as evident by Ext.P11 order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
“10.So, on going through the above rule it could be seen that no slaughter house could be established within 90 metres from any dwelling houses. Even though the additional respondents
WP(C) NO. 24449 OF 2015 5
contended that the slaughtering house is within the distance of 30 metres that is not born out from the sketch prepared by LSGD Engineer and in the description he did not specify the distance from the road to the slaughter house. Additional respondents has produced photographs of the appellant's slaughtering place containing six photographs. A byline is seen just near to the slaughter house. But from the photograph the exact distance from the slaughter place to the road is not discernible. At any rate, has come out that there are 6 dwelling houses within the prohibited distances.
WP(C) NO. 24449 OF 2015 6
So the impugned decision taken by the Panchayat on the application filed by the appellant in not granting licence to the slaughter place is well founded. So, I don't find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned decision and consequential order issued by the Secretary. But I would also like to point out that there is no slaughter house in the Panchayat and as per Section 229 Panchayat may establish a slaughter house in all the Panchayat. The specific prayer of the appellant is to permit him to continue with the slaughtering till the Panchayat establishes a place for use as public slaughter house. But the proviso to Section 229 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act specifically states that if any complaint with respect to the conduct of slaughtering house has been received from the nearby residents action for starting slaughter house shall be taken only after detailed examination of the complaint. That is what has been done in the present case. So I don't find any revision to interfere with the same.”
A perusal of the above order would show that the Tribunal had considered all the contentions of the petitioner. There is nothing to interfere with the above order. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
Sru
WP(C) NO. 24449 OF 2015 7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24449/2015
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 |
TRUE COPYRESPONDENTCONDUCT THE |
OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 2NDPERMITTING THE PETITIONER TOSALE OF MEAT. |
|---|---|---|
EXHIBIT P2 |
TRUE COPY OPETITIONER |
F THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THEBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT P3 |
TRUE COPYBETWEEN THEVIDE NO. A1 |
OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER1 - 10327/11 ON 23.12.2011. |
EXHIBIT P4 |
TRUE COPYWHERE THE |
OF THE SKETCH INDICATING THE AREAPETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND THE |
SLAUGHTERPROPERTIES. |
HOUSE IS SITUAED AND THE NEARBY |
|
EXHIBIT P5 |
TRUE COPYWPC NO. 131 |
OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 23.7.2013 IN79/2012. |
EXHIBIT P6 |
TRUE COPY OBY THE 2ND |
F THE ORDER DT. 29.11.12013 ISSUEDRESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT P7 |
TRUE COPYBEFORE THEINSTITUTION |
OF THE APPEAL NO. 1157/2013 FILEDTRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENTBY THE PETITIONER. |
EXHIBIT P8 |
TRUE COPY ONO. 1157/20 |
F THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN APPEAL13 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT P9 |
TRUE COPY OBY THE 3RD |
F THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION FILEDRESPONDENT IN APPEAL 1157/2013. |
EXHIBIT P10 |
TRUE COPY OIN IA NO. 2 |
F THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 17.12.2013278/2013 IN APPEAL NO. 1157/2013. |
EXHIBIT P11 |
TRUE COPYAPPEAL NO.FOR LOCALTHIRUVANANT |
OF THE ORDER DT. 29.7.2015 IN1157/2013 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNALSELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,HAPURAM. |
EXHIBIT P12 |
TRUE COPYCONSTRUCTIO |
OF THE DETAILED PLAN FORN OF SLAUGHTER HOUSE. |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal rightly upheld the Panchayat's refusal to renew the petitioner's slaughter house licence for violation of distance rules and water pollution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.P.LONAPPAN
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
KODASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SRI.BIJU M.D
THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
VINODH KAVUNGAL
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court