JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J.
1. The writ petitioner claims to be the Convenor of Swasraya Sahakarana Sangam at Maruthoor. Ext.Pl is the Byelaw. Ext.P2 is the Certificate issued by the Kalloorkkad Farmers Co-operative Bank. According to the petitioner, the property of the petitioner’s mother was taken on lease for starting a Pig Farm. It is stated that an application was made for licence/consent to the local authority and to the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. It is stated that the Officers of the Pollution Control Board inspected the Pig Farm and as per their direction, heavy investments were made for constructing sceptic tank, gas plant etc. Ext.P3 is the plan approved by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. By letter dated 14-10-2004, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board issued consent also. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 10 made complaints before the first respondent to close down the pig farm. The father of the petitioner was made the counter petitioner. A conditional order was passed (Ext.P5). According to the petitioner, he filed objection that the Pig Farm is run by the Swasraya Sahakarana Sangam. It is without issuing notice to the petitioner, the Kalloorkkadu Farmers’ Cooperative Bank, etc. that the first respondent by Ext.P6 order made the conditional order absolute. Petitioner made a petition before the first respondent to recall Ext.P6 order (Ext.P7). It is stated that his father who was the counter petitioner in Ext.P6 filed Crl.R.P. No. 71/04, challenging Ext.P6, before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and the same was dismissed. The contention of the petitioner is that under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. the conditional order shall be one directing the person who is doing the trade committing nuisance, etc. In this case, the conditional orders (Exts.P5 and P6) were issued against the petitioner’s father and the said orders are not binding on the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 for recalling Ext.P6, and that the respondent is duty bound to consider the same. It is stated that the petitioner has obtained consent from the Pollution Control Board and satisfied all conditions. Reliance is placed on Section 141 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that irreparable injury will be caused to the petitioner. The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows:
“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the functioning of the pig farm in Sy. No. 258/1B/1.259/18A of Kalloorkad Village functioning in accordance with Ext.P4 consent of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.
ii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Ext.P6 order of the second respondent is not binding on the petitioner.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 in accordance with law.”
2. A Counter Affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 10. It is, inter alia, contended that the petitioner, his father, mother and other family members are operating an unauthorised and illegal pig farm. The pit farm is the joint venture of the petitioner and his family members. It is located in a strictly residential area where they reside. It is stated that there is no licence from the Panchayat, Health Authority or the Pollution Control Board. Air and water are highly polluted. Ext.Pl is alleged to be manipulated.
The U.P. School teachers and students are suffering from dirty foul smell from the pig farm and the shortage of drinkable water, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has issued Ext.Rl0(a) notice to stop the farm. Ext.P2 is alleged to be a false document. Exts.P3 and P4 are managed, according to the respondents, suppressing truth. It is stated that the application for consent was filed on 21-6-2004 while the preliminary order was passed by the first respondent on 14-6-2004. It is stated that the farm owner challenged Ext.P6 by filing Crl.R.P. No. 71/04. In that Crl.R.P., the petitioner has produced two forged documents showing consent by the neighbour and an agreement of lease. Complaint has been filed by the 6th respondent against the farm owner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Muvattupuzha and Crime No. 92/04 was registered against the farm owner under Section 420, 469 and 471 IPC and investigation is pending. It is stated that in Crl.R.P.71/04, the petitioner has produced Annexure A3 agreement dated 29-8-2001 and in that agreement the name of the Convenor is shown as Thomas George, Son of Thomas, Perumpillikunnel House, Kalloorkad and in the Writ Petition, the petitioner is shown as the Convenor, Thomas George, son of George. It is stated that the respondents suspected personation in the name of the petitioner. In the local area and among family members, the petitioner is called Sanoop, S/o. George. It is stated that the petitioner is drawing water nearly from 400 metres away by pumping and the school children and other inhabitants of the area are forced to drink dirty polluted water.
3. A Reply Affidavit has been filed denying the allegation in the Counter Affidavit. It is stated that the Swasraya Sahakarana Sangam was formed as per the scheme of Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. It is further stated that the petitioner had made an application for licence to the Kalloorkkad Panchayat. However, no orders were communicated to the petitioner. When Ext.Rl0(a) notice was issued to the father of the petitioner, the petitioner contacted the Panchayat Authorities and reminded about the pendency of the application for licence. It is stated that consequently the Panchayat stopped all proceedings based on Ext.Rl0(a). It is stated that since no orders were communicated on the application for licence as the same was misplaced, the petitioner has made another application on 29-10-2004 for licence to the Panchayat (Ext.P9). The Panchayat has not so far communicated orders on Ext.P9. It is stated that respondents 4 to 7 are residing away from the farm. Petitioner reiterates that the proceedings of the first respondent are not binding on him. He relied on Sub-section (3) of Section 236 in this regard. It is extracted as follows:
“236. General provisions regarding licences and permissions —
(3) Save as aforesaid, if orders on an application for any such licence or permission are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days or such longer period as may be prescribed in any class of cases after the receipt of the application by the Secretary, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the period, if any, for which it would have been ordinarily allowed and subject to the law, rules and bye-laws and all conditions ordinarily imposed.”
4. It is clear from a perusal of Sub-section (3) of Section 236 that if no orders are passed, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the period if any, for which it would have been ordinarily allowed and subject to the law, rules or byelaws and all conditions ordinarily imposed. The licence is usually issued for a period of one year. Even according to the petitioner, he made the application for licence on 8-12-2000. If that be so, it is clear that the licence stood expired on 7-12-2001. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has not even produced the application for licence allegedly made on 8-12-2000. He has a case that he made Ext.P9 application dated 29-10-2004 seeking a licence. It is to be noted that the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Pigs and Dogs) Rules, 1998 provides as follows:
“4. Licence– If any Village Panchayat takes a decision under Rule 3, then, every person possessing or having control of any dog and or pig shall, before the date specified in the decision, submit an application to the Secretary showing the details such as the age, colour and breed of the animal together, with a fee of rupees ten for licence from the Village Panchayat to rear or keep in possession each such animal.”
5. It is clear that Ext.P9, even assuming that it has been given, cannot be even treated as an application in the proper form. If that be so, it is clear that the petitioner does not possess a licence as required in law for the rearing of pigs. In such circumstances, the Pig Farm cannot be run except after obtaining a licence as is required in law. He as operating the Pig Farm without licence. Ext.Rl0(a) issued by the Panchayat also supports the respondents’ contention. The Panchayat has not been made a party in this Writ Petition. Also I find that though it is admitted that Ext.P6 was challenged by the counter petitioner in Ext.P6 the father of the petitioner before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, it stood dismissed. The second prayer, however, in the Writ Petition is to declare that Ext.P6 order is not binding on the petitioner. The petitioner’s complaint does not deserve consideration and the Writ Petition is dismissed.