IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2007 / 11TH ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 36327 of 2005(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K.MOHANAN, TEACHER, VILAYAMCODE, P.O.VILAYAMCODE, (VIA)MANDOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KADANNAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADANNAPPALLI, P.O. KANDONTHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR. 3. P.KUNHIRAMAN, SON-IN-LAW OF VANIYAN VALAPPIL KAMARAN, P.O.VILAYAMCHODE, (VIA)-MANDOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.P.M.PAREETH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No.36327 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007 JUDGMENT Complaint of the petitioner is that third respondent is running a chicken stall cum slaughter house in a shed attached to his house bearing door No.K.P.VIII/604 at Chittannur within the limits of first respondent Panchayat, without any licence or permission from the local authority. It is stated that petitioner filed Ext.P1 lawyer notice. Ext.P2 is the reply notice sent by the Panchayat. It is stated in Ext.P2 that first respondent conducted enquiry and found that third respondent is conducting a paultry business and slaughter house by causing nuisance to the neighbour houses. Petitioner has approached this court seeking to eliminate the slaughter house being conducted by the third respondent near to the house of the petitioner. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 3. 3. Counsel for the third respondent submits that Chicken WPC No.36327/05 2 stall cum slaughter house being run near the house of the petitioner is not being run there after the filing of the writ petition and they have stopped the running of the same and the third respondent has vacated the building. In such circumstances, I do not think that the grievance of the petitioner survives. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the third respondent, the writ petition is closed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) sv. WPC No.36327/05 3