IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 474 of 2010()
1. EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
... Petitioner
2. THE SECRETARY
Vs
1. K.P.RENADEVAN, REJIN NIVAS
... Respondent
2. THE PRESIDENT
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
5. MR.SUKUMARAN, THACHAVEETTILKALA
6. MR.JEEVAN, PUTHENVELIL
7. MANOJ, PEREPARAMBU
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :16/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ &
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.A. 474 OF 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Raman, Ag. CJ.
This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single
Judge, rendered in W.P.(C) 33311 of 2009, on 15.1.2010. The first
respondent herein was the writ petitioner who approached this Court
for a direction to the first respondent to quash the decision taken by the
first respondent said to have been taken on 12.11.2009 and to restitute
the pig farm as it stood on that day and further to pay a sum of Rs.
10,00,000/- as compensation.
2. The first respondent was conducting a piggery in his
property, based on licence issued by the Panchayat and after obtaining
NOC from the District Medical Officer and consent letter issued by the
Pollution Control Board. In 2007 when the licence became due for
renewal, at the instance of Respondents 6 to 8, the renewal was granted
up to 31.3.2010, on condition that he should produce consent letter of
the Pollution Control Board for the period subsequent to 1.7.2009.
WA 474/2010 2
But at the instance of Respondents 6 to 8, the Environmental Engineer again
refused to grant consent to operate the farm as per Ext.P2 on the ground that
the first respondent did not provide satisfactory facilities for treatment of
polluted effluents and was causing nuisance to the public by way of sound
pollution. He challenged the said order by filing a statutory appeal before
the appellate authority, which is still pending. Whole so, the Panchayat
issued Ext.P4 notice to the first respondent to show cause why in the light
of Ext.P2 order, licence shall not be cancelled. He was given 14 days time
to submit his explanation. Though he received the said show cause notice
only on 31.10.2009 and before the expiry of 14 days time to submit the
explanation, a resolution was passed by the Panchayat on 12.11.2009
resolving to cancel Ext.P1 licence and on the very same day, the authorities
came to the piggery in the absence of the first respondent and removed five
pigs without giving any notice. It is further submitted that the remaining 44
pigs were also removed on 13.11.2009 and were transported to the Meat
Products of India and realised a sum of Rs. 1,73,520/-. As against the
order cancelling the licence, the first respondent preferred a statutory appeal
before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Inter alia
WA 474/2010 3
contending that as a result of the highhanded act of the Panchayat in
removing the pigs and selling the same while statutory appeals are pending,
he has caused damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs and claiming such
damages, he preferred the writ petition.
3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the
Tribunal eventually allowed the appeal cancelling the decision taken by the
Panchayat, by order dated 10.2.2010, after disposal of the writ petition.
The facts being as stated above, the contentions raised in the appeal are
devoid of any merit. The fact remains that the first respondent had, in fact
submitted his reply and the only reason stated for cancelling the licence is
because of the objection raised by the Engineer of the Pollution Control
Board and non renewal of the consent. At any rate, the very decision of
the Panchayat has since been set aside by the Tribunal, the direction as
issued by the learned Single Judge to refund the amount realised after the
sale of the pigs cannot be faulted. We find no merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, it is dismissed.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Panchayat,
however, submitted that the cost awarded is on a higher side. We heard
WA 474/2010 4
both sides. In case the amount of Rs.1,73,520/- is paid within a weeks time,
the cost will stand reduced to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs. 25,000/-. Since the
Panchayat owes the responsibility of the entire action, liability fastened on
the Secretary personally will stand deleted.
P.R. RAMAN,
(Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE)
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
(JUDGE).
knc/-