IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27645 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SMT.M.K. HALEEMA, D/O.LATE MAYANKUTTY, MURINGAKODAN HOUSE, KUNDURKUNNU P.O., MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 583. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL, SMT.BIMALA BABY. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, THACHANATTUKARA, P.O. NATTUKAL, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 001. 4. THE SECRETARY, THACHANATTUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE THACHANATTUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 001. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED SHAH. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 27645 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01/10/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 27645 of 2011 E ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ In order to establish a poultry farm, petitioner has obtained Ext.P1 consent from the Pollution Control Board. It is stated that, as a condition for obtaining licence from the local authority, she requires a sanitary certificate issued by the third respondent. Application was made, inspection was conducted and Ext.P2 order has now been passed declining the certificate. In Ext.P2, it is stated by the third respondent that he was not satisfied with the facilities provided. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the inspection, facilities have been provided and if fresh inspection is conducted, the third respondent will be satisfied that the certificate can be issued. 2. In my view, after the inspection conducted by the third respondent any alteration has been made by the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to bring such alteration W.P.(C) No.27645/2011 : 2 : into the notice of the third respondent and if an application in that behalf is made, the third respondent should conduct a fresh inspection of the facilities provided by the petitioner. 3. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to make a fresh application to the third respondent, in which event, the third respondent will consider the same and conduct fresh inspection of the facilities provided by the petitioner. On that basis, the third respondent will pass fresh orders in the matter, provided he is satisfied with the facilities provided by the petitioner. It is directed that, if any application is made by the petitioner within ten days from today, the third respondent will inspect the premises of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter and orders thereon will be passed without any further delay. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/19/10 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge