Kerala High Court
Narayanan vs The Sreekrishnapuram Grama Panchayath on 29 October, 2018
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1940
WP(C).No. 18556 of 2013
PETITIONER/S:
1 NARAYANAN,S/O. PARANGODAN (LATE), CHOLAYIL HOUSE,
PARTHALA, MANNAMPATTA P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 633.
2 SURESHKUMAR,AGED 42 YEARS
S/O VELAPPAN, CHOLAYIL HOUSE, PARTHALA,
MANNAMPATTA P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 633.
3 AMMINI,AGED 63 YEARS
W/O CHAMI (LATE), KOTTIYAMMATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PARTHALA, MANNAMPATTA P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 633.
BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SREEKRISHNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SREEKRISHNAPURAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679513.
ADDL.R2 VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.KUTTYKRISHNAN,
ATTTHALAPARAMBIL HUSE, PARTHALA,
MANNAMPATTA P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 633
(ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADD AS PER ORDER DATED 29.7.2013 IN IA
10332/13)
BY ADVS.
SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
SMT.SINDHU SARAH THOMAS
SMT.T.M.BINITHA
SRI.E.RAMACHANDRAN
R1 BY SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
R2 BY SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN
SRI.R.UMASANKAR
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.10.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 18556 of 2013
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or that call for all records leading to Exhibit P6(a), (b) & (c) orders and quash the same
(ii) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondent that allow the petitioners to functioning the poultry farms without the consent letters of the residents, who are constructed house after the establishment of poultry farms."
2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-
Petitioners are running poultry farms in their own properties from 2011 onwards. According to the petitioners, all neighbours have given consent letters to them to start poultry farms, evident from Ext.P1 series (10 in number). The Pollution Control Board has issued certificates to three poultry farms, namely, Exts.P2 (a), P2(b) and P2(c). Sanitary certificates are produced as Exts.P3 (a) and P3(b). The respondent panchayath has WP(C).No. 18556 of 2013 3 also issued licences to run the poultry farm for the year 2013-14 valid up to 31.3.2014, evident from Ext.P4(a) P4(b) and P4(c). It is also the case of the petitioners that all the poultry farms are started with financial assistance from the banks and they are facing severe financial constrains. While so, the additional second respondent has submitted a complaint before the Panchayath, objecting to the poultry farm conducted by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, there is no manner of pollution caused from the poultry farms conducted by the petitioners, however, on the basis of the complaints filed, show cause notices are issued to the petitioners and stop memos are issued, evident from Ext.P6 series. It is challenging Ext.P6 series of notices petitioners have filed this writ petition.
3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to filing of the complaint before the Panchayath and they are of the opinion, that consequent to the conduct of the farms the additional second respondent is put to WP(C).No. 18556 of 2013 4 innumerable and various difficulties, and therefore, the said respondent seeks appropriate action from the side of the respondent panchayath for closing down. It is also pointed out that, even though notices were issued to close down, pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, petitioners are conducting the farms. These are the basic background facts available before me to consider the reliefs sought for by the petitioners.
4. I have heard respective counsel across the Bar and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
5. Apparently, the license so far as issued by the panchayath is concerned, it is that of the year, 2013-14. I am informed that, subsequently D & O licenses were issued by the panchayath for the subsequent years.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that, petitioner are having all necessary clearances from the respective statutory authorities, and therefore, they are entitled to continue with the WP(C).No. 18556 of 2013 5 operation of the poultry farms .
7. However, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that, the nuisance will continue and unless and until the Panchayath is directed to consider the complaint submitted by the petitioners and finalise the same, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the 4th respondent.
8. Having evaluated the situation and taking into account the various pros and cons I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions.
9. If the petitioners are continuing with the operation of the poultry farms after securing necessary clearances from the panchayath as well as the PCB, they are permitted to continue so, however, if necessary clearances are not secured, three months time is granted to the petitioners to file necessary and suitable applications before the respective statutory authorities seeking licence and consent.
10. In that process, there will be a direction to the Panchayath as WP(C).No. 18556 of 2013 6 well as any other statutory authority to take into account any objection submitted by the second respondent and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the second respondent, necessary orders shall be passed, also taking into account the observations and directives contained above.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPIES OF THE CONSENT LETTERS GIVEN BY THE NEIGHBOURS TO THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 27.10.2012 TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2(B):TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 27.10.2012 TO THE SECOND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2(C):TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 27.10.2012 TO THE THIRD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3(A):TRUE COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR DATED 8.3.2013.WP(C).No. 18556 of 2013
7 EXHIBIT P3(B):TRUE COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR DATED 6.4.2013.
EXHIBIT P4(A):TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-2014 TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4(B):TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-2014 TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4(C):TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-2012 TO THE THIRD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5(A):TRUE COPY OF THE REGISRATION CERTIFICAE ISSUED UNDER THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX RULES.
EXHIBIT P5(B):TRUE COPY OF THE REGISRATION CERTIFICAE ISSUED UNDER THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX RULES.
EXHIBIT P5(C):TRUE COPY OF THE REGISRATION CERTIFICAE ISSUED UNDER THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX RULES.
EXHIBIT P6(A):TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS DATED 4.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6(B):TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS DATED 4.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6(C):TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS DATED 4.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD PETITIONER.
RESPODENTS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY BILL EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.01.2009 EXHIBIT R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT RELATING TO THE SANCTION BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN 2003 FOR CONSTRUCTING THE HOUSE EXHIBIT R2(e) COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.12.2013 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
dlk/31/10/18