IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 21259 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.A.AJAYAN, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, THRIKKALLOOR PARAMBU VEEDU, KURUMASSERY PO. PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAKKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MOOZHIKKULAM, KURUMASSERY P.O., PIN - 683 579. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION. 4. JOSE, S/O.VARKEY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PLACKAL HOUSE, KURUMASSERY P.O., PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE, PIN - 683 579. ADV. SRI.S.GOPINATHAN FOR R1 SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM FOR R1 SRI.JAISON JOSEPH FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 21259 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 31st October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent in running a piggery without obtaining licence from the 1st respondent Panchayat and without taking appropriate measures for preventing pollution. The Panchayat has issued a stop memo which was not obeyed by the 4th respondent. Although the Panchayat sought assistance of the 3rd respondent for enforcing the stop memo, the 3rd respondent did not offer adequate assistance. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 1st & 3rd respondents to stop the pig farm conducted by the 4th respondent without licence and without observing the safety measures.” 2. On 23-10-2008, I passed the following order: “Government Pleader shall get instructions from the 3rd respondent as to why he is not rendering necessary assistance to the 1st respondent Panchayat to close down the piggery in spite of the specific request made by the Panchayat in that regard.” 3. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the Panchayat made available to me a communication from the 3rd respondent to the effect that the piggery conducted by the 4th respondent has been closed. It is further stated in the communication that if any further assistance of the Police is necessary for preventing the 4th respondent from conducting the piggery, the matter may be informed to the 3rd respondent. In the above circumstances, recording the above, this writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to W.P.C. No. 21259/08 -: 2 :- approach this Court again if the 4th respondent continues with a piggery without any licence. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.