IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 3370 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.B.ALI, S/O.BAVA, AGED 41, KUNJITHY HOUSE, KUMMANODE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN SRI.P.M.MUJEEB REHIMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. ALAVUDDIN, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 34, URAVUNGAL HOUSE, KUMMANODE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3370 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April , 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P5 decision of the second respondent Committee vacating Ext.P2 order of stay which had been passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat against the conduct of slaughtering house by the fourth respondent. Ext.P2 order of stay was passed by the Secretary on the basis of Ext.P1 complaint which was submitted by the petitioner and similarly aggrieved persons. The petitioner's case is that the Public Health Authority has submitted Ext.P4 report recommending for confirmation of Ext.P2 and that Committee notwithstanding Ext.P4 took Ext.P5 decision ignoring Ext.P4 and without hearing atleast the petitioner as a representative of the various complainants. Even though all the respondents have been served with notice none of them have come forward to resist the prayers in the writ petition. The averments in the writ WPC No.3370/2008 2 petition in my opinion stands established by non traverse. 2. Under the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P5 and direct the second respondent to take fresh decision on the issue covered by Ext.P5 after hearing the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. Fresh decision as directed above shall be taken by the second respondent at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk