IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM

                                                              PRESENT:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH
                                                                    &
                                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                 MONDAY,THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

                                      WA.No. 1893 of 2013 () IN WP(C).18471/2013
                                               --------------------------------------------

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18471/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19.11.2013



          APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT:
          ------------------------------------------------------

            JANARDHANAN
            S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, KUNNEL HOUSE, EZHALLOOR P.O.
            KUMARAMANGALAM, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685605.

            BY ADVS.SRI.RAJAN JOSEPH
                         SRI.KOSHY GEORGE

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1,2&4:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       1. V.M.HYDROSE, AGED 61 YEARS
            S/O.MYTHEEN, VETTIKKAL HOUSE, EZHALLOOR P.O.
            THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685605.

       2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROLL BOARD
            REPRESENTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
            IDUKKI DISTRICT OFFICE, SRN BUILDING, THODUPUZHA
            PIN-685584.

       3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
            CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT
            PIN-625603.

       4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
            THODUPUZHA, PIN 685584.

          R3,4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ABOOBACKER
          R2 BY SRI. M.AJAY,STANDING COUNSEL, KERALA STATEPOLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
          R1 BY SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN

            THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-12-2013,
          THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.NO. 1893 OF 2013




                                            APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
----------------------------------------

ANNEXURE A- COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.11.2012 SENT BY THE DISTRICT
                     MEDICAL OFFICER (H) IDUKKI TO THE SECRETARY, KUMARAMANGALAM
                     GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

ANNEXURE B - COPY OF THE REVISION NO.128/2013 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF
                     GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DATED 2.9.2013.


RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ;
------------------------------------

          NIL

                                                           // TRUE COPY //


                                                           P.A. TO JUDGE

sou.



                K. M. JOSEPH & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ
             ----------------------------------------------------
                        W.A. No. 1893 OF 2013
             ----------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 16th day of December, 2013


                              J U D G M E N T

K.M. Joseph, J Appellant is the third respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed seeking the following relief :

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the third respondent is not conducting the pig farm without obtaining statutory license/clearance from the first respondent.

(ii) to direct the first respondent to take further action pursuant to Exhibit P2 invoking section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1981 and Section 33A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974."

2. Briefly put, the case of the writ petitioner is as follows :

The petitioner is residing with his family in Kumaramangalam Village of Idukki District. The 3rd respondent is running a pig farm without licence or statutory clearance. Adjacent to the dwelling house of the petitioner, the pig farm is conducted in a most unscientific manner and causing threat to the public hygiene. The petitioner along with 59 other residents of the locality preferred complaint before the 1st and 2nd  WA.No.1893/13 2 respondents. The 1st respondent has directed the 3rd respondent by issuing order dated 16.7.2012 to remove the pig farm and report within 15 days. Even after the receipt of the order, the 3rd respondent is continuing his illegal acts. The petitioner furnished representations before the 1st respondent seeking further action pursuant to the order issued by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is bound to give directions to the police as well as the Electricity Board for the stoppage of the unauthorised pig farm and stoppage of electricity supply for the running of the farm invoking section 31 A of the Air (prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent 1 and 2 the above writ petition is preferred.

3. Counter affidavit is filed. There is no reply affidavit.

4. Learned Single Judge found that the appellant is not entitled to run the piggery without obtaining a proper and valid licence from the competent authority. The interim order against the running of the farm was made absolute and the concerned respondents were directed to take necessary steps to cause the same to be closed down. It is also make clear that it will not bar the way of appellant in pursuing the matter before the Tribunal. Ultimately if the 3rd respondent obtains necessary licence, it will  WA.No.1893/13 3 be open for the third respondent to run the piggery thereafter subject to satisfaction of the conditions to be imposed, both by the local authority and also by the Pollution Control Board. Considering the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, three weeks time was granted to close down the piggery, failing which it will be for the concerned respondent to implement the closure.

5. We heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board and learned counsel for the writ petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that learned Single Judge has not considered the effect of Ext.R3(b), which is passed by the Tribunal in the revision filed against the appellate order of the Panchayat. By R3(b) order the Tribunal has stayed the decision of the appellate Authority directing closure of the farm. Apparently it is a case where the appellant is running the pig farm. Admittedly the appellant does not have a licence. His case is that application has been filed for licence.

7. Further facts which we notice is that when the Pollution Control Board took steps, the appellant actually sought three months time to dismantle the farm and to shift vide annexure-  WA.No.1893/13 4 R1(3) dated 7.11.2012. According to the writ petitioner, the application for licence was sent subsequently. As of now, there is no licence as such for the appellant to continue the pig farm. Obtaining of licence is a legal necessity. As far as present writ petition is concerned, it is filed for enforcing the orders under Pollution Control Authority. Ext.P2 is the direction, which appears to be appealable. No appeal has been carried so far.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we only modify the judgment granting two weeks time from today for closing down the farm. This will be without prejudice to any other remedy open to the appellant.

Sd/-

K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/-

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

Sou.

// True copy //