IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13060 of 2009(B)
1. K.F.DAVIS, S/O.FRANCIS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KANDANASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. THE PRESIDENT, KANDANASSERY GRAMA
3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
4. THE HEALTH SUPERINTENDENT,
5. GEORGE, U.D.CLERK,
For Petitioner :SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
For Respondent :SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :10/09/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.13060 of 2009-B
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioner has approached this Court seeking
to quash Ext.P10 whereby he has been essentially
ordered to close down a piggery. Whatever be the
contentions of the petitioner, the larger
question that arises for decision in the writ
court is the fact that the operations were
continuing in a manner injurious to public
health. I had, therefore, issued an order on
28.8.2009 which reads as follows:
“1.The petitioner filed this writ
petition seeking stay of Ext.P10 which
is challenged on the ground that it
has been issued by an incompetent
authority. The larger issue on the
face of the court of justice is as to
whether the petitioner, who,WP(C)13060/09 -: 2 :-
admittedly going by the submissions
made today on his behalf, has 50 pigs
in his pig farm, should be permitted
to continue his operations in a manner
injurious to public health, as is
disclosed by the materials on record.
In April, 2009, the Pollution Control
Board has filed a report stating that
at the time of inspection, ordour
nuisance could be experienced even at
the nearby residences. The PCB
accordingly refused consent to
operate. This was four months ago.
Later, an order was issued on
17.7.2009, enabling the petitioner to
update the establishment to make it
eligible for continued operation.
That order was issued after noticing
Ext.R6(c) which evidences that the
Public Health Authorities are also
unhappy with the manner in which the
Panchayat is permitting activities in
violation of the D & O Rules.
2. What transpired after that interim
order is that on 24.7.2009, the
petitioner again applied to the PCB
for consent to operate. On 12.8.2009,
directions were issued by the PCBWP(C)13060/09 -: 3 :-
after an inspection on 5.8.2009. Now,
the petitioner says that he is
awaiting the assistance of the
National Institute of Inter
Disciplinary Science & Technology,
Pappanamkode, referred to in the PCB
communication dated 12.8.2009, which
is Ext.P12. He says that after that,
he will make a proposal for the
implementation to the PCB. It is
further stated that the petitioner had
contacted the National Institute of
Inter Disciplinary Science &
Technology, which, in turn, has told
the petitioner that they could visit
the premises only after Onam
holidays.
3. The materials on record
categorically demonstrate that the
petitioner cannot continue with the
activities awaiting all the aforesaid
clearance and have the pigs kept in
unhygienic and shabby manner in which
it is now. Learned counsel for the
Panchayat is right in saying that he
is hiding away even the true figure
before the public. Taking all the
relevant facts and circumstances intoWP(C)13060/09 -: 4 :-
consideration, it is directed that the
petitioner will be permitted to keep
the pigs for a period of one week from
today and if he does not dispose off
or remove the pigs from the place in
question, the Panchayat authorities
will be at liberty to take action for
disposal of those pigs in accordance
with law and any loss sustained by the
Panchayat in that regard would be
recovered in terms of law.
Post for further consideration on
8.9.2009.”
2.That order was issued following an earlier order
dated 17.7.2009 which recorded the fact that even
the public health authorities are unhappy with
the manner in which the panchayat is permitting
the activities in violation of the D & O Rules.
3.In the aforesaid circumstances, when the matter
was taken up day before yesterday, the counsel
for the panchayat stated that he has written
instructions that the panchayat proceeded to
WP(C)13060/09 -: 5 :-
remove the pigs, close the piggery and auction
off the pigs, however that, not a single pig was
found in the site. The learned counsel for the
petitioner, on instructions from his client,
stated that the said statement is not true and
there were half a dozen pigs even now available.
4.This matter is taken up today to further
ascertain the situation. The learned counsel for
the petitioner stated that even this morning he
has instructions from his client that he has 6-7
pigs, as of now.
5.With the aforesaid, rather than niceties of the
rules governing licences, what is more important
is the requirement to ensure that no activity is
carried on without proper licence and without
clearance of the public health authorities.
In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ
petition is ordered directing that the first
respondent panchayat will ensure that necessary
WP(C)13060/09 -: 6 :-
action is taken to strictly enforce the
provisions of law to ensure that public health
and hygiene is secured and no activity is carried
on, except in accordance with law. Any request of
the petitioner for modified licence, if made
within a week, will also be decided upon within a
further period of one week.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/100909