Madras High Court
R.Kala vs The Executive Officer on 24 July, 2015
Bench: S.Manikumar, G.Chockalingam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.07.2015
Coram
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
Writ Appeal (MD) No.865 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 4 of 2014
R.Kala ... Appellant/
Petitioner
vs.
1.The Executive Officer,
Killiyoor Town Panchayat,
Killiyoor, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Block Health (Sanitary) Supervisor,
Killiyoor Block Office,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Deputy Director of Health and
Sanitation Service, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
4.Vincent, S/o.Thangaraj
5.Gnanaiyan, S/o.Swaminathan
6.S.Thangaiyan
7.Anbaiyan, S/o.Joseph
8.James, S/o.Joseph
9.Shibi, S/o.G.Rajesh Babu
10.Justine George Kumar, S/o.Masilamani ... Respondents/
Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the
order, dated 26.06.2014 made in W.P.(MD)No.1729 of 2014.
!For Appellant : Mr.F.Deepak
^For Respondent-1 : Mr.C.Selvaraj,
Spl.Govt.Pleader.
For Respondents 2&3 : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian
For Respondents 4 to 10 : Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR,J) Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order made in W.P.(MD)No.1729 of 2014, dated 26.06.2014, in which the appellant has sought for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.382/13, dated 09.01.2014 and Na.Ka.No.382/13, dated 16.12.2013, of the Executive Officer, Killiyoor Town Panchayat, Killiyoor, Kanyakumari District, the first respondent. Proceedings impugned in the writ petition are as follows:
?e.f.v;z;-382/2013> ehs; - 16.12.2013 mwptpg;G nghUs; : gd;wp g;ziz ? fps;spA+h; Ng&uhl;rp ? mDkjp ,d;wpp gd;wp gz;iz elj;JtJ jilnra;tJ ? njhlh;ghf.
ghh;it : Ch; nghJkf;fs; Gfhh; kD ehs; - 16.12.2013.
--------
fd;dpahFkhp khtl;lk;> fps;spA+h; Ng&uhl;rpf;Fl;gl;l Ml;L njhOtl;lk;> njhiyahtl;lk; vd;w ,lj;jpy; jhq;fs; Ng&uhl;rp kw;Wk; chpa Jiw mDkjp ,d;wp gd;wp gz;iz elj;jp tUtjhy; nghJ kf;fSf;F Rfhjhu NfL kw;Wk; Neha;fs; guTk; mghak; cs;sJ vd ghh;itapd; gb nghJ kf;fsplkpUe;J Gfhh; fpilf;fg;ngw;Ws;sJ. vdNt jhq;fs; ,j;jghy; fpilj;j 15 jpdq;fSf;Fs; gd;wp gz;izia mg;Gwg;gLj;j njhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ. jtwpdhy; rl;lg;gb gd;wp gz;iz elj;JtJ jil nra;a eltbf;if vLf;fg;gLk; vd;gij njhptpf;f;ggLfpwJ. ?
?e.f.v;z;-382/2013> ehs; - 09.01.2014 mwptpg;G nghUs; : gd;wp g;ziz ? fps;spA+h; Ng&uhl;rp ? mDkjp ,d;wp gd;wp gz;iz elj;JtJ jilnra;tJ ? njhlh;ghf.
ghh;it : 1)Ch; nghJkf;fs; Gfhh; kD ehs; - 16.12.2013.
2),t;tYtyf fbj vz; ehs; - 18.12.2013.
3)tl;lhu Rfhjhu Nkw;gh;itahsh;> muR Muk;g Rfhjhu epiyak;> fps;spA+h; mth;fspd; fojk; ehs; - 08.01.2014.
------
fd;dpahFkhp khtlllk;> fps;spA+h; Ng&uhl;rpf;Fl;gl;l Ml;L njhOtl;lk;> njhiyahtl;llk; vd;w ,lj;jpy; jhq;fs; Ng&uhl;rp kw;Wk; chpa Jiw mDkjp ,d;wp gd;wp g;z;iz elj;jp tUtjhy; nghJ kf;fSf;F Rfhjhu NfL kw;Wk; Neha;fs; guTk; mghak; cs;sJ vd ghh;itapd; gb nghJ kf;fsplkpUe;J Gfhh; fpilf;fg;ngw;Ws;sJ. Mjd;gb jq;fSf;F clNd mg;Gwg;gLj;j njhptpf;fg;gl;lJ. jhq;fs; ehsJ tiu mg;Gwg;gLj;jhky; gd;wp gz;iz nray;gLj;jp tUfpwPh;fs;. NkYk; ghh;it (3)d; gb gd;wp gz;izia mg;Gwg;gLj;j njhptpf;fg;gl;l gpd;Gk; Rfhjhu NfL Vw;gLj;jp tUfpwPh;fs;. vdnt jghy; fpilj;j vO jpdq;fSf;Fs; gd;wp gz;izia mg;Gwg;gLj;j ,Wjpahf njhptpf;f;ggLfpwJ.?
2.Before the writ court, the Executive Officer, Killiyoor Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari District, has filed a detailed counter affidavit, opposing the prayer.
3.Adverting to the above, vide order dated 26.06.2014, made in W.P.(MD)No.1729 of 2014, the Court, at paragraph No.9, has ordered as follows:
?9.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no sanction or licence is required for the petitioner to run a piggery Farm and the petitioner is running the same as per the norms fixed by the concerned authorities without causing any health hazards and a complaint was made against the petitioner only out of enmity with the oblique motive to curtail the business of the petitioner. In order to support his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Clause 8.2 of Micro, Small and Medium Industries Policy, 2008. But, from G.O.No.174 Rural Development Department dated 23.08.1996, I find that for running Piggery Farm, the Licence of Executive Officer of Panchayat is necessary. In the instant case, absolutely no such licence was obtaining. Further, by the said G.O., the Executive Officer of Panchayat was authorised to initiate action, if he comes to the conclusion that the Piggery Farm create health problem to the public. Therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no sanction or licence is necessary from any authority cannot be countenanced. Further, Sections 240, 245, 246 and 247 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 empowers the first respondent to take appropriate action with regard to the maintenance of cattle shed and Section 240 specifically says that no person shall keep any animal on his premises so as to be a nuisance or so as to be dangerous. Therefore, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to get licence from the first respondent as per G.O.No.174 Rural Development Department dated 23.08.1996. But in the instant case, the petitioner has not obtained any such licence. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the first respondent. Hence I do not find any compelling circumstances, warranting this Court to interfere with the impugned orders of the first respondent. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.?
4.Assailing the correctness of the same and inviting the attention of this Court to the acknowledgement issued by the Additional Director of Industries and Commerce (DIC), for submission of a Memorandum for setting up a manufacturing enterprise, Mr.F.Deepak, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is fully qualified to run a piggery. During the course of hearing, he further submitted that application for grant of licence was made to the Executive Officer, Killiyoor Town Panchayat and to the Block Health (Sanitary) Supervisor, Killiyoor Block Office, Kanyakumari District, the second respondent, for necessary certificate and both the authorities have rejected the request and that the appellant has chosen to challenge the rejection of licence before the writ court, by way of a separate proceedings. The request made for issuance of a licence and the consequential rejection would show that piggery was run without licece from the competent authority.
5.Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy, learned counsel for private respondents 4 to 10, submitted that provisions of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 would apply insofar as licence to piggery is concerned. Submission is placed on record.
6.Inasmuch as the petitioner has chosen to challenge the rejection of licence in a separate writ proceedings, nothing survives in this appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed and the interim order is vacated. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index:yes/no. (S.M.K.,J) (G.C.,J)
Internet:yes/no. 24.07.2015
gb
To:
1.The Executive Officer,
Killiyoor Town Panchayat,
Killiyoor, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Block Health (Sanitary) Supervisor,
Killiyoor Block Office,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Deputy Director of Health and
Sanitation Service, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
S.MANIKUMAR,J
and
G.CHOCKALINGAM,J
gb
Judgment in
W.A.(MD)No.865 of 2014
and
MP(MD)Nos.1 to 4 of
2014
Dated:24.07.2015
.