High Court Kerala High Court

Sijo Mathew vs The Special Grade Secretary on 3 March, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sijo Mathew vs The Special Grade Secretary on 3 March, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17280 of 2006(F)


1. SIJO MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ULICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

3. STATE OF KERALA,

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,

5. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SURENDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.CIBI THOMAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :03/03/2009

 O R D E R
                      HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
                ---------------------------
                   W.P.(C).NO.17280 OF 2006
                ----------------------------
             DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner is residing in the property having an extent of

5 acres and 50 cents. Petitioner submitted that he is running a pig

farm situated in the property, that there is a bio-gas plant installed

near the pig farm, that the waste from the farm is an input and that

he is getting sufficient quantity of bio-gas for cooking purposes.

There are 11 cages in which the pigs are kept in the farm having

sheet roof and side mesh which are made for protection from sun,

rain, intruding animals and birds. Petitioner also installed a sealed

waste disposal pit for disposal of other waste. According to the

petitioner, there is enough source of water for cleaning the cages

and premises. Therefore, the running of the pig farm is not causing

any nuisance to the people residing in the locality.

2. Petitioner applied for grant of licence under the Kerala

Panchayat Raj (Licensing of pigs and dogs) Rules, 1998. Ext.P1 is

-2-
W.P.(C).No.17280/2006

the application for licence. Ext.P2 is the certificate issued by the

Veterinary Surgeon. Ext.P3 is a notice issued by the Panchayat

directing the petitioner to stop the functioning of the farm. The

same was issued based on the complaints filed by some persons

in the locality, who are in inimical terms with the petitioner,

according to him. The petitioner submitted that in respect of

Ext.P4 reply, the Panchayat again issued notice dated 3-4-2006

and insisted that the consent of people residing within 100 metres

of the farm is required to be obtained. Ext.P5 is the

communication received by the petitioner. In Ext.P5 it is stated

that the petitioner shall obtain instructions of the Veterinary

Doctor and Health Inspector and also to get consent from the

people residing within the radius of 100 metres. Again the

Panchayat issued Ext.P7 notice stating that the conditions

stipulated by the Panchayat is not followed. Ext.P11 is another

communication received from the Pachayat, which also stipulates

more or less the same conditions stipulated in Ext.P5. According

to the petitioner, the conditions contained in Exts.P4 and P5

-3-
W.P.(C).No.17280/2006

cannot be imposed on him, as they are not reasonable restrictions

for the running of the pig farm. According to the petitioner, he

had satisfied all the conditions stated in Ext.P11, except the

condition regarding obtaining of consent and that the Panchayat

cannot legally prescribe conditions as stated in Exts.P10 and P11

over and above the conditions stipulated in the rules.

3. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P7,

P11 and the conditions contained in Ext.P10 and for a direction

to the lst respondent to issue a licence for running the existing

farm in the property. In Ext.P10 decision of the Board Meeting,

there is no condition that the licensee shall obtain consent of

neighbours residing within the radius of 100 metres. In Ext.P10

the conditions stipulated are the Health Inspector’s Certificate,

the applicant shall maintain the cage need and tidy, install a pit

for disposal of waste and to fix time for catering the pigs. In

Ext.R1(b) a further condition was stipulated stating that the

consent of the neighbours is necessary.

4. By interim order dated 16/1/2008 this Court directed

-4-
W.P.(C).No.17280/2006

the petitioner to cure all the defects and to maintain the pig farm

pollution free. This Court issued further direction to the Kerala

State Pollution Control Board to conduct an inspection with

notice to the petitioner and additional respondents 6 to 9 and to

file a report to this Court. Pursuant to the interim order passed by

this Court, the Pollution Control Board reported that collection

shed for food waste has been built, that bio-gas plant is not

maintained properly and the slurry was not property treated. This

was noted on the date of inspection, i.e. 21/4/2008. Again the

unit was inspected on 29/5/2008 and found that the unit has not

complied with the directions given by the Board and that foul

smell spread in the premises and the pig farm is not maintained

hygienically.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat it is

contended that few families are residing within 100 meters of the

farm, that the petitioner is running the pig farm in violation of the

conditions of licence and that the petitioner is not entitled to run

the pig farm without a valid licence. Learned counsel for

-5-
W.P.(C).No.17280/2006

respondents 6 to 9 submitted that the running of the farm is

causing nuisance to the public. According to the counsel, the 6th

respondent is residing 80 meters away, 7th respondent is residing

87 meters away, 8th respondent 94.5 meters away and the 9th

respondent 185.5 meters away from the pig farm. From the

submission made by the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 9 it

is very clear that these persons are residing at a good distance

from the pig farm. If the petitioner complies with the directions

issued by the Panchayat in the matter of maintenance of the pig

farm in healthy conditions, there may not arise any problems to

any persons, who are the residents in the locality. I have also

noted that the pig farm is situated in the property having an

extent of 5 acres and 50 cents. Respondents 6 to 9 are residing at

a distance of more than 80 meters from the property. So the

complaint regarding the nuisance caused to them by running of

the pig farm may not be so serious as alleged in their counter

affidavit. Inspection of the pig farm by the Veterinary Doctor and

Health Inspector and to carry out their instructions are must and

-6-
W.P.(C).No.17280/2006

the petitioner shall follow such instructions. The petitioner shall

also maintain the pig farm neat and tidy and shall comply with

the other conditions issued by the Panchayat on health grounds.

If the petitioner abide by the conditions issued by the Panchayat

from time to time, the Secretary of the Panchayat shall conduct

an inspection of the pig farm, after issuing notice to the petitioner

and if he satisfies that the pig farm is maintained properly, he

shall issue licence without insisting the distance condition under

the rules. In order to ascertain whether the pig farm is maintained

properly, periodical inspection shall be conducted by the

Secretary of the Panchayat.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

HARUN-UL-RASHID,
Judge.

kcv.