Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/5TH BHADRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 21275 of 2014 (H)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------
SONIA JOSEPH,
W/O.JOSEPH, D/O.AUGUSTIN, KONGALAYIL
KANJIRAKKAD, KALICHANADUKKAM
KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671314.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
SMT.AMAL SARAH EIPE
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------
1.KODOMBELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ATTENGANAM.P.O
KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671531.
2.KODOMBELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ATTENGANAM.P.O
KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671531.
3.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671531.
4.THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
KASARAGOD DISTRICT CENTRE, DISTRICT OFFICE, MAM ARCADE
NEAR RAILWAY STATION, KANHANGAD-671315.
R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BO
R BY SRI.PHILSON MATHEWS, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CO
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-08-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 21275 of 2014 (H)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
------------------------------
EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.1/4/2009 BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE THE PIG FARM DT.30/6/2012.
EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DT.25/1/2014 RENEWING THE CONSENT TO
OPERATE THE PIG FARM.
EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DT.19/4/2011 .
EXT.P5: COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE DT.15/4/12 ISSUED BY HEALTH
INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, ENNAPPARA,KASARAGOD
DISTRICT.
EXT.P6: COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT
DT.11/4/2012.
EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PASS BOOK OF NORTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK
EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.5/7/2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------------
R1(A):TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY ROY ALEXANDER AND
52 OTHERS.
R1(B):TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 20.6.2014 ISSUED BY HEALTH OFFICER.
R1(C):TRUE COPY OF CLOSURE INTIMATION NOTICE ISSUED BY POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD DATED 12.6.2014.
R1(D):TRUE COPY OF CLOSURE NOTICE DATED 5.7.2014 INTIMATION ISSUED BY
PANCHAYAT.
R1(E):TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 31.7.2014.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
W.P.(C). No.21275 OF 2014
==========================
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2014
JUDGMENT
The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of a property having an extent of 1 acre of land comprised in re-survey No.448/1A of Thayannur village in Kasaragode District. She is conducting a piggery therein. This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by Ext.P8 notice issued by the first respondent requiring the petitioner to close down the piggery. Evidently, such a notice was issued on receipt of complaints from the people of the locality regarding the unhygenic conditions in which the piggery is being conducted. It is also stated therein that the petitioner has not obtained licence from the the first respondent for running the piggery.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is specifically stated therein that the petitioner has been W.P.(C).21275/14 2 running the piggery without obtaining the valid licence from the panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issuance of License to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Act. It is also stated therein that on obtaining complaints from the local people, an inspection was conducted in the piggery and it was found that the said piggery has been functioning in an unhygenic condition. It was in the said circumstances that Ext.P8 notice was issued. The learned standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, on instructions, submitted that a complaint was received against the ill-functioning of the piggery pursuant to which a closure intention notice was issued to the petitioner to close it down. In fact, that notice was produced by the first respondent as Ext.R1(c). It is stated therein that the piggery is located less than 50 metre away from a nearby residence and that too, without complying with condition Nos.3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of the consent issued earlier. It was in the said circumstances that closure intention notice was issued in terms of section 33A of the Water (Prevention & Control Pollution) Act 1974.
W.P.(C).21275/14 3
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, the learned standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and the learned Government Pleader. It is evident from the contentions raised by the petitioner that prior to the commencement of the piggery, she had submitted Ext.P1 application dated 1.4.2009 before the first respondent. Evidently, that application was unaccompanied by a valid consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. Consent to operate the piggery was issued by the PCB only on 4.10.2010. True that the petitioner got renewed the license subsequently as per Ext.P3, up to 30.6.2015. The petitioner did not have a case that prior to Ext.P2 he was issued with valid consent to operate by the fourth respondent. An application submitted for permit or licence unaccompanied by the requisite documents before the concerned Local Self Government Institution cannot be considered as a valid application. Evidently, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that W.P.(C).21275/14 4 she had produced valid consent to operate along with Ext.P1 as Ext.P2 was issued more than 1= years after Ext.P1. The prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P1 application. I am at a loss to understand what purpose could be served by issuing such a direction. It is to be noted that the very case of the petitioner is that she accrued the deemed licence in terms of the provisions under section 236 (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act owing to the failure on the part of respondents 1 and 2 to act upon Ext.P1. An invalid application could not fetch any deemed licence under section 236 (3) of the Act. Even if it is taken that owing to the failure on the part of the first respondent to act upon Ext.P1 the petitioner accrued deemed licence, it could be valid only for a period of one year. In that event, it could be treated that the said deemed licence expired on 31.3.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner had to file an application for its renewal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 letter dated 19.4.2011. Obviously, that letter W.P.(C).21275/14 5 addressing the secretary of the first respondent was submitted much after the expiry of the deemed licence, if at all it could be treated that the petitioner had accrued deemed licence by virtue of operation of section 236 (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. There is no case for the petitioner that subsequently she filed any application for licence. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to disagree with the finding of the first respondent to the effect that the petitioner is running the piggery without obtaining a valid licence. The learned counsel further submitted that the pigs and piggies come about 100 numbers. In the light of the provisions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Issuance of License to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Act, such a piggery cannot function without obtaining a valid licence from the first respondent. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P8 and it calls for no interference. This writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly it is dismissed. It is made clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner in approaching the authorities with a proper W.P.(C).21275/14 6 application for licence. It is further made clear that the petitioner cannot function the piggery without a valid licence from the first respondent and therefore, it will be open to the first respondent to issue appropriate instructions to regulate the disposal of the pigs and piggies in the piggery.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
(JUDGE)
spc/
W.P.(C).21275/14 7
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September,2010
W.P.(C).21275/14 8