IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33373 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHIBU PAUL, AGED 33, S/O.PAUL, KADUTHODIL HOUSE, KADANAD KARA, KADANAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. BHARANANGANAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE PRESIDENT, BHARANANGANAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. 3. C.M.DAVASSIA, CHIRAKKAL, PRAVITHANAM P.O. 4. JOSE, KAYYAIAKKAKAM, PRAVITHANAM P.O. 5. GOPALAKRISHNAN, CHIRAKKAL, PRAVITHANAM P.O. 6. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL FOR R1 SRI.BINU PAUL FOR R1 SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP FOR R3 SRI.SADER E.REAZ FOR R3 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR ADV.COMMISSIONR R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI K.V.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 33373 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 14, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner contends that in a plot of land having an extent of 6.12 acres of land situated in Bharananganam Village, he is conducting a pig farm and a slaughter house. According to the petitioner, he was granted Ext.P1 licence valid upto 31.3.2006 which was extended by Ext.P5 upto 31.3.2007. It is stated that by Ext.P2 he was required to obtain consent of the Pollution Control Board, which was also obtained by him by Ext.P8 allowing him to rear 30 pigs. Subsequently, pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P8, he obtained a revised consent as per Ext.P9 permitting him to rear upto 130 pigs. Various conditions have been imposed in Exts.P8 and P9. 2. Ext.P6 is the licence issued to the petitioner for maintaining a slaughter house, valid till 31.3.2007. Subsequently a mass petition was received by the Panchayat and that led to the appointment of a Sub Committee of its members for inspecting the licensed premises. Ext.P10 is the report of the Sub Committee which inspected the premises. Ext.P10 report WP(C) 33373 of 2007 2 gives a very disturbing picture regarding the unhygenic manner in which the place is maintained. That was followed by Ext.R3 (b), a report given by the Village Officer, Bharananganam to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ext.P16 report of the Medical Officer, and Ext.R3(a) report of the Pollution Control Board. These were followed by yet another inspection by the Sub Committee of the Panchayat which gave Ext.R3(d) report. All these reports consistently give the version that the conditions of consent and the licence are not complied with. 3. In the meantime, the petitioner submits, that he had applied for renewal of licences as well. The application was considered and by Ext.P22 resolution of the Panchayat, taking note of the aforesaid circumstances, the Panchayat resolved not to renew the licences that were granted to the petitioner. Following Ext.P22 resolution, Ext.P23 stop memo was also issued to the petitioner. Against Ext.P22, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions as Appeal No.133/2007. The appeal was also dismissed by Ext.P24 order of the Tribunal. 4. Petitioner contends that before Ext.P24 was passed, WP(C) 33373 of 2007 3 along with Ext.R3(e) application dated 1.9.2007, he had produced additional documents including the licences that were issued by the Panchayat. However, in Ext.P24 order, the Tribunal wrongly held that he never had D & O Licence. It is also pointed out that in the said order the Tribunal has erroneously held that the licence granted to the petitioner under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter House and Meat Stalls) Rules 1996, was also irregularly granted. It is challenging Ext.P22, as confirmed in Ext.P24, this writ petition has been filed. 5. In this writ petition, under the orders of this Court, an Advocate Commissioner visited the place in question and has submitted his report. The report of the Advocate Commissioner is also not favourable to the petitioner and is also consistent with the reports which were referred to above and relied on by the Panchayat while passing Ext.P22. However, the Advocate Commissioner extracted the reports of the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board in Paragraphs 15 and 16 of his report. He has also extracted the inspection report of the District Medical Officer. In the Commission report, six remedial WP(C) 33373 of 2007 4 measures have also been suggested. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the construction of separate slaughter houses recommended in the report, all other remedial measures have been complied with. He also submits that biogas plants are fully functioning and that the cleaning also is being done as suggested by the District Medical Officer. It is also stated that a chimney has been constructed and that a compound wall also has been constructed. On this basis it is contended that there is no reason to decline licence to him. 7. The learned counsel for the Panchayat and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 assert in one voice that none of the conditions for consent or licence have been complied with by the petitioner. According to them, from the very beginning, petitioner has been violating these conditions and they would submit that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition also, the petitioner is continuing his slaughter house and fish trade without even a licence and in violation of the interim order dated 13.11.2007. 8. Having considered the submissions made by both sides, WP(C) 33373 of 2007 5 I feel that since it is the specific contention of the petitioner that he has taken all possible remedial measures which were suggested by the authorities concerned, the establishment needs to be inspected by the Sub Committee of the Panchayat once again. By order dated 13.11.2007, status quo in so far as the piggery was directed to be maintained and it was on that basis that the petitioner continues to function the piggery unit even now. As already noticed, it is the specific case of the petitioner that all remedial measures have been taken. According to him, if a fresh inspection is conducted by the Sub Committee based on whose reports renewal was declined by the Panchayat, they can very well appreciate the improvements. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the Sub Committee should include a representative either of the District Medical Officer or of the Pollution Control Board, I am not inclined to allow the said request. This is for the reason that it is basically for the Panchayat to decide as to whether licence should be granted in terms of sec.232 of the Act and, if so, on what conditions. This being a statutory power conferred on the Panchayat, I do not think it proper to introduce other agencies into the Sub WP(C) 33373 of 2007 6 Committee which is to conduct the inspection. 9. Accordingly I direct that the Sub Committee of the Panchayat shall inspect the premises of the petitioner within one week from today. On such inspection, if the Committee is satisfied that the situation in the piggery has been improved as asserted by the petitioner, it will be open to the petitioner to submit an application for renewal of his licence, in which case that will be considered by the Panchayat and orders passed immediately thereafter. On the other hand, if the Committee finds that, contrary to the claims of the petitioner, there is no improvement in the situation, it will be open to the Panchayat to enforce Ext.P23 stop memo without any further delay in this matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-