Kerala High Court
Noorjahan vs State Of Kerala
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/13TH MAGHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 41468 of 2016 (G)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
NOORJAHAN,AGED 50, W/O. KABEER,
VYSIAM PARAMBIL, ERATTUPETTA -2,
MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. MOONNILAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MOONNILAVU P.O. - 686 586,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
DISTRICT OFFICE KOTTAYAM,
SREENIVASA IYER ROAD,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT
KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O - 686 002.
R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.NAVEEN SC,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW,SC,
MOONNILAVU G.PANCHAYAT
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. RENIL ANTO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 02-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 41468 of 2016 (G)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED THE PANCHAYAT TO THE
PETITIONER BEARING NO. B1-2049/13 ON 05.11.2013.
P2 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER BEARING NO.B2-663/16 DATED 30.4.16.
P3 TRUE COPY OF RR DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 18.4.16 TO THE PETITIONER.
P4 TRUE COPY OF R.R DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 31.5.16 TO THE PETITIONER.
P5 TRUE COPY OF LICENCE APPLICATION SUBMITTED THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE LIVE STOCK RULES 2012 ON
17.6.16.
P6 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
BEARING NO. 1725 DATED 28.6.16.
P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
BEARING NO. PCB/KTM/CO/3945/16 DATED 05.7.16.
P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON
14.12.16 BEARING NO. PA-1, 11806/16.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
---------------------------- NIL
// True copy //
PA to Judge
das
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
===========================================
W.P.(C). No. 41468 of 2016
=====================================================
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner had applied for a license for a Dairy Farm, before the 2nd respondent Panchayath, under the Kerala Panchayat (Issue of License to Live Stock) Rules, 2012. While processing the said application, the 2nd respondent required the petitioner to obtain a consent from the 3rd respondent Pollution Control Board for the purposes of considering the license application. The petitioner, therefore, approached the 3rd respondent through an application dated 27.06.2016, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P7 communication that was issued to the petitioner. Through Ext.P7 communication, the 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to obtain a certificate from the Secretary of the Panchayat certifying that the petitioner has got the necessary infrastructure in place for the purposes of running a Dairy Farm with 30 heads of cattle, and that the said infrastructure is sufficient to ensure compliance with the pollution control norms. In the writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for a license in the light of an order passed by the 3rd respondent on the application for consent, that is preferred by the petitioner before -2- W.P.(C). No. 41468 of 2016 the 3rd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that she is being made to run from pillar to post in her attempt at getting a license from the 2nd respondent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Panchayat, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Pollution Control Board, as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents of the State.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that the application preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent is pending consideration before the said respondent. While the 2nd respondent had insisted on a consent from the 3rd respondent for the purposes of considering the application of the petitioner for Panchayat license, the 3rd respondent by Ext.P7 communication, has in turn, required the petitioner to obtain a certificate from the Secretary of the Panchayat certifying certain facts about the infrastructure, that is stated to be maintained by the petitioner in -3- W.P.(C). No. 41468 of 2016 connection with the conduct of the Dairy Farm. In my view, when the 3rd respondent is the authority, who is to issue the consent certificate with regard to compliance with the pollution control norms, then it would be for the 3rd respondent to visit the premises of the petitioner to ensure compliance by the petitioner with the said norms, and then issue the necessary consent to the petitioner, if the petitioner is found to be complying with the norms. The said enquiry cannot be delegated to another person, since it is the 3rd respondent, who is competent to speak on the technical aspects of pollution control and compliance with the norms. Accordingly, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions:
(i) The 3rd respondent shall, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, consider and pass orders on the application dated 27.06.2016 submitted by the petitioner before him, for consent.
(ii) The 2nd respondent Panchayat shall, immediately on receipt of the order passed by the 3rd respondent, pursuant to the directions of this Court, and at any rate, within a further period of three weeks from the said date, consider and pass orders on the application -4- W.P.(C). No. 41468 of 2016 preferred by the petitioner for Panchayat license under the Kerala Panchayat (Issue of License to Live Stock) Rules, 2012.
(iii) I make it clear that, if either the 2nd respondent or the 3rd respondent requires any clarification with regard to the factual aspects of the Dairy Farm that is proposed by the petitioner, then it will be open to them to issue a notice to the petitioner for an appearance so as to obtain such clarifications.
(iv) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment before the 2nd and 3rd respondents, for further action.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das/ 2.2.2017