IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 474 OF 2010() AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.33311/2009 APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: 1. EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ERAMALLUR PO, CHERTHALA. 2. THE SECRETARY EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT ERAMALLUR PO, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENTS/PETITITONR & RESPSONDENTS 3 TO 8: 1. K.P.RENADEVAN, REJIN NIVAS EZHUPUNNA PO.CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE PRESIDENT EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT ERAMALLOR PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DY.S.P.S OFFICE, CHERTHALA. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AROOR POLICE STATION, AROOR. 5. MR.SUKUMARAN, THACHAVEETTILKALA EZHUPUNNA PO, EPW-2,CHERTHALA. 6. MR.JEEVAN, PUTHENVELIL EZHUPUNNA PO, EPW-2 CHERTHALA. 7. MANOJ, PEREPARAMBU EZHUPUNNA PO EPW-12, CHERTHALA. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. R1 BY ADV. SRI. SEBASTIAN DAVIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. 474 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag. CJ. This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, rendered in W.P.(C) 33311 of 2009, on 15.1.2010. The first respondent herein was the writ petitioner who approached this Court for a direction to the first respondent to quash the decision taken by the first respondent said to have been taken on 12.11.2009 and to restitute the pig farm as it stood on that day and further to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation. 2. The first respondent was conducting a piggery in his property, based on licence issued by the Panchayat and after obtaining NOC from the District Medical Officer and consent letter issued by the Pollution Control Board. In 2007 when the licence became due for renewal, at the instance of Respondents 6 to 8, the renewal was granted up to 31.3.2010, on condition that he should produce consent letter of the Pollution Control Board for the period subsequent to 1.7.2009. WA 474/2010 2 But at the instance of Respondents 6 to 8, the Environmental Engineer again refused to grant consent to operate the farm as per Ext.P2 on the ground that the first respondent did not provide satisfactory facilities for treatment of polluted effluents and was causing nuisance to the public by way of sound pollution. He challenged the said order by filing a statutory appeal before the appellate authority, which is still pending. Whole so, the Panchayat issued Ext.P4 notice to the first respondent to show cause why in the light of Ext.P2 order, licence shall not be cancelled. He was given 14 days time to submit his explanation. Though he received the said show cause notice only on 31.10.2009 and before the expiry of 14 days time to submit the explanation, a resolution was passed by the Panchayat on 12.11.2009 resolving to cancel Ext.P1 licence and on the very same day, the authorities came to the piggery in the absence of the first respondent and removed five pigs without giving any notice. It is further submitted that the remaining 44 pigs were also removed on 13.11.2009 and were transported to the Meat Products of India and realised a sum of Rs. 1,73,520/-. As against the order cancelling the licence, the first respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Inter alia WA 474/2010 3 contending that as a result of the highhanded act of the Panchayat in removing the pigs and selling the same while statutory appeals are pending, he has caused damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs and claiming such damages, he preferred the writ petition. 3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the Tribunal eventually allowed the appeal cancelling the decision taken by the Panchayat, by order dated 10.2.2010, after disposal of the writ petition. The facts being as stated above, the contentions raised in the appeal are devoid of any merit. The fact remains that the first respondent had, in fact submitted his reply and the only reason stated for cancelling the licence is because of the objection raised by the Engineer of the Pollution Control Board and non renewal of the consent. At any rate, the very decision of the Panchayat has since been set aside by the Tribunal, the direction as issued by the learned Single Judge to refund the amount realised after the sale of the pigs cannot be faulted. We find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Panchayat, however, submitted that the cost awarded is on a higher side. We heard WA 474/2010 4 both sides. In case the amount of Rs.1,73,520/- is paid within a weeks time, the cost will stand reduced to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs. 25,000/-. Since the Panchayat owes the responsibility of the entire action, liability fastened on the Secretary personally will stand deleted. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). knc/-