High Court Kerala High Court

Shaji Philip vs Pallikkathodu Grama Panchayath on 13 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Shaji Philip vs Pallikkathodu Grama Panchayath on 13 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 17729 of 2007(I)


1. SHAJI PHILIP, PANDIYAPPILLIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PALLIKKATHODU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, PALLIKKATHODU GRAMA

3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :13/07/2007

 O R D E R
                            K.M.JOSEPH, J.

                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

               W.P.(C).No.17729 OF 2007

             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                   Dated this the 13th day of July, 2007


                                JUDGMENT

Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

Petitioner has started a pig farm unit in the year 2003 in the

respondent Panchayat by availing loan. No licence was required

for piggery unit at that time. But due to the undue influence of

some antisocial elements of that locality, Panchayat issued a

notice to close down the unit even though petitioner has

observed all conditions prescribed by Medical Officer and District

Medical Officer. Petitioner filed appeal against the order of

demolition of the unit. But that appeal was rejected by the

Committee. Against that order petitioner preferred revision

before the Panchayat Tribunal. Panchayat Tribunal allowed the

revision and set aside the order passed by the Panchayat.

Thereafter, respondent Panchayat passed a resolution imposing

licence for piggery farm under Dog and Pig Licence Rule and

Dangerous & Offensive Trades and Factory Rule. According to

WPC No.17729/07 2

the petitioner, notice was not published properly. Petitioner

applied for licence under Dog and Pig Licence Rule. But it was

rejected by the respondent. Petitioner’s application for licence

under Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factory Rule was also

not considered. The intention of the Panchayat is to reject that

application and issue notice to demolish the pig farm.

Learned counsel for the Panchayat points out that petitioner

has preferred an appeal against Ext.P10 and that will be

considered on merit as it is filed in time. In such circumstances,

the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to

consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a decision in

accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

sv.

WPC No.17729/07 3