IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3725 of 2009(R)
1. AVARACHAN @ AHRAHAM, S/O.MANI AGED 42
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SECRETARY, ERUVESSY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/02/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 3725 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 4th February, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is running a chicken farm in a building of his
own. He has been served with Ext. P2 notice, whereby he has been
directed to stop his business. According to the petitioner, Section
231 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is not applicable in the case of
chicken farm and therefore he challenges Ext. P2 and seeks the
following relief:
“Issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing Ext. P2 notice issued by the 1st respondent to the
petitioner.”
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. It is true that Section 231 does not apply to the petitioner’s
chicken farm. However, under Section 232, in respect of dangerous
and offensive trades, a licence is mandatory. The Government has
promulgated Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous
and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996, as per which, in
respect of trades mentioned in Schedule I, a licence is mandatory.
Item 130 of Schedule I to the said Rules relates to “Poultry, pig, goat –
Storing, sale”. Item 85 relates to “Meat – Storing, preparing or
selling”. Therefore, whether the petitioner is selling live chicken or
chicken meat, the petitioner is liable to take out a licence for his
chicken farm from the Panchayat. Admittedly, the petitioner does not
possess a licence. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong with Ext.
P2 notice. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/