IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 28775 of 2006(A)
1. M.K.VINOD, AGED 30 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. M.P.PRATHEESH, S/O.BHASKARAN,
Vs
1. VARAPETTI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, VARAPETTI GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
4. M.K.SIVAN, S/O.KUNJAPPAN PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM
For Respondent :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :11/01/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO. 28775 of 2006
----------------------------------
Dated this 11th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
The Senior Engineer of the District Office of the Pollution
Control Board, Ernakulam, is impleaded suo motu as the
additional 5th respondent in this writ petition. The Registry will
carry out necessary corrections in the cause title.
2. The petitioners, who are neighbours of the 4th
respondent, complains that the 4th respondent is conducting a
chicken farm without any licence from the first respondent
Panchayat. The 3rd respondent District Medical Officer of Health
has reported to the Panchayat that the renewal of licence
sought for by the 4th respondent shall not be issued to him in
view of lack of facilities for waste disposal and the pollution
problems generated by the farm of the 4th respondent. The
petitioners submit that on the basis of Ext.P3, the Panchayat
issued Exts.P4, P5 and P6 notices to the 4th respondent directing
him to close down the chicken farm. But the 4th respondent did
WPC No.28775/2006 2
not obey. The 4th respondent approached the Civil Court for an
order of injunction to restrain the Panchayat from taking action
against him. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the Learned Munsiff
on the application for temporary injunction submitted by the 4th
respondent. According to the petitioners, Ext.P7 order has
attained finality in the sense that no appeal was preferred
against Ext.P7 by the 4th respondent.
3. The writ petition has been filed seeking writ of
mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2, to take
appropriate action against the 4th respondent for the illegal
conduct of the Chicken farm and another writ of mandamus
commanding respondents 1 and 2 not to renew licence in respect
of chicken farm and close down the unit.
4. Heard both sides. No counter affidavit has been filed.
Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam the learned counsel for the 4th respondent
sought time to file counter affidavit. However, in the nature of
the decision which is being taken, I think it is not necessary to
grant time for filing counter affidavit. The learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that there is no justification in the 4th
WPC No.28775/2006 3
respondent not obeying Exts.P4, P5 and P6 particularly in the
light of Ext.P7. Even now more and more chicken is being
brought to the farm as a result of which hazards which are
being caused to the health of the petitioner and the entire public
is on the increase. Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam, the learned counsel for
the 4th respondent submits that the application submitted by the
4th respondent for renewal of the licence is yet to be disposed
of and an application for consent from the additional 5th
respondent is also pending before that respondent. The learned
counsel submitted that the 4th respondent will obey whatever
directions are issued to him either by the additional 5th
respondent or the 3rd respondent so that the chicken farm will be
pollution free in all respects. According to the learned counsel,
the farm is the sole means of livelihood for the 4th respondent
and abrupt closure of the farm will result in considerable
hardship to the 4th respondent.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made before
me in the light of the various materials placed on record, I am
of the view that interest of the petitioner will be safeguarded if
the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
WPC No.28775/2006 4
i). The additional 5th respondent will immediately conduct
an inspection of the premises of the chicken farm which is being
conducted by the 4th respondent with notice to the 4th
respondent, Secretary of the Panchayat and also the petitioners.
If the inspection reveals that the farm is causing serious
pollution problems as alleged by the petitioners, the additional
5th respondent will issue appropriate direction to the 4th
respondent to eradicate those problems and the 4th respondent
will be bound to abide by those directions.
ii). Additional 5th respondent will submit a report to the
2nd respondent on the basis of a subsequent inspection
conducted if the 4th respondent claims to have complied with all
the directions given to him by the 5th respondent in his first
inspection. The 2nd respondent will take into account that
report also and then take a final decision on the application for
renewal of licence submitted by the 4th respondent. A final
decision on the application for renewal of licence will be taken
by the 2nd respondent with notice to the petitioners also.
Iii). Till such time as a final decision is taken on the
WPC No.28775/2006 5
application for renewal of licence as directed above, the status
quo as obtaining today in the chicken farm regarding chicken
strength in the farm will be maintained. It is more or less agreed
before me that the present strength of the chicken in the farm is
2000. The 4th respondent shall not increase the strength of
chicken above 2000 till such time as orders are passed on the
renewal application.
iv). Till such time as the Pollution Control Board conducts
its second visit, the 4th respondent shall not bring any fresh
chicken at all to the farm.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Judge
dpk