IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 14543 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KALASAKKARAN LATHA, D/O.KUNHAMBU, ALANTHATTA, VALIYAPOYIL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, KAYYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHEEMENI P.O.. 2. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA FOR R1 SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14543 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF REJECTION ORDER DATED 1.11.08 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.2.09 IN I.A.184/09 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BY CONSENT NO.PCB/KSRD/ICE/13/08 DATED 7.6.08 GIVEN BY THE PCB TO THE PETITIONER EXT.R1(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY EXT.R1(b)- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PIG FARM EXT.R1(c)- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY DYFI (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).14543/2009 ....................... Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for a building permit to construct a building for the purpose of a pig farm. That application was rejected by the respondent Panchayat by Ext.P1 order. The reason stated is that from the public health point of view, petitioner cannot be allowed to establish a pig farm. Although the petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P1 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, by Ext.P2 order that appeal was belated and was rejected for that reason. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed. 2. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit justifying its order. According to the Panchayat, although the permit application was rejected, the petitioner still constructed the building and the local residents of the area submitted several complaints expressing apprehensions about permitting the petitioner to establish a pig farm in the locality. W.P.(C).14543/09 2 3. As already seen, the only reason stated in Ext.P1 for rejecting the application for building permit was health reasons. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, petitioner has produced as Ext.P3 the consent that she obtained from the Pollution Control Board. Although going by the counter affidavit, the consent order was also produced by the petitioner before the Panchayat, the impact of the conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board, on the application made by the petitioner is not seen adverted to by the Panchayat while passing Ext.P1 order. Therefore Ext.P1 order, having been passed without taking into account the consent order issued by the Pollution control Board, Ext.P1 is vitiated for the reason that Ext.P3 was taken into account. For that reason, I am inclined to set aside Ext.P1. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is quashed and Panchayat shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner for a building permit, in the light of Ext.P3, the consent issued by the Pollution W.P.(C).14543/09 3 Control Board. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs