IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 360 of 2010()
1. VARKEY, AGED 59, S/O.MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PRINCIPAL
... Respondent
2. MUDAKIZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY
3. KURIAKOSE, S/O.PAILY, PATHICKAL HOUSE,
4. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :05/04/2010
O R D E R
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No.360 of 2010
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010
JUDGMENT
C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 17th February, 2010 in
W.P.(C) No.15969 of 2009, the unsuccessful writ petitioner has
preferred the present writ appeal.
2. The appellant is running a Quail farm in his residential
compound without appropriate licence from the concerned
Panchayat. One of his neighbours complained to the Revenue
Divisional Officer. In a meeting held by the Revenue Divisional
Officer to resolve the dispute, the appellant gave an undertaking to
close down his Quail farm by 31st May, 2009.
3. However, subsequently the appellant made an
application to the Panchayat seeking appropriate licence for running
the abovementioned farm. Eventually, the application of the
appellant was rejected by order dated 23.5.2009 under Ext.P7.
W.A. No.360 of 2010
– 2 –
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached this Court by
filing the writ petition.
4. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal
recorded in paragraph 3 of the judgment that the appellant is
guilty of suppression of material facts inasmuch as the appellant
did not mention about the undertaking given by him before the
Revenue Divisional Officer. Though the learned Judge did not
base his final decision on the abovementioned suppression, we
are of the opinion that one fact is sufficient not to entertain the
writ petition. Those who do not approach this Court with clean
hands are not entitled for any consideration of their rights.
In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to
interfere with the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is
dismissed.
J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
C.N.Ramachandran Nair,
Judge
vns