IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26517 of 2008(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. MR. JIBINS, S/O. GEORGE, AGED 27 YEARS, THADATHINPUTHEN PURAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPADAM BHAGAM, UDAMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. 2. MR. SHIJU, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 33 YEARS, THOTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, UDAMBANOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. 3. MR. BINOY, S/O. KURIAN, AGED 34 YEARS, PULLATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, UDUMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA,IDUKKI. 4. MR. BIJOY, S/O. KURIAN, AGED 32 YEARS, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, UDUMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. 5. MR. MANUAL @ MANI, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, PALLATHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, UDUMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. MR.K.A. GEORGE, S/O. IYPE, AGED 60 YEARS, KOCHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, CHEEMIKUZHI.P.O, UDUMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. MATHEW LIJO JACOB, S/O. CHACKO, AGED 28, PENATHIKALAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHEENIKUZHI.P.O, UDUMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM Kss ..2/- ...2.... WPC.NO.26517/2008 F RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE UDUMBANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, UDUMBANNOOR THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, IDUKKI, PAINAVU. 3. M.V. THOMAS, AGED 44, S/O. VARGHESE, MUNDUCHIRACKAL HOUSE, CHEENIKUZHI.P.O, UDUMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. 4. JOHN.K.L, KOMAPANATHOTTATHIL, CHEENIKUZHI.P.O, UDUMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA,SC FOR R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R. DEEPA- R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26517/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners were running Poultry farms. On the ground that they had no licence, by Exts.P3 and P4, they were asked to stop functioning of the poultry farms. They carried the matter in appeal and that was rejected by the Panchayat Committee, on the ground that NOC from the DMO was not obtained and that therefore licence cannot be issued. 2. Petitioners submit that thereafter, all of them had applied to the second respondent for issuance of NOC and Ext.P1 is one of the applications so filed. The complaint is that, though the DMO has received the application he is not pursuing the matter further and that at the same time the Panchayat has issued Ext.P7 show cause notice calling upon the petitioners to show cause why they shall not be proceeded on the ground that the sheds constructed are 2 unuathorised. 3. Even according to the Panchayat, the reply submitted in the nature of Ext.P8 also have been received and the matter is still pending. Petitioners now submit that it was on account of inertia on the part of the DMO that they are not in a position to obtain licence. 4. I heard the counsel for the Panchayat also. I see no justification for the DMO in not processing the application received from the petitioners and conduct an inspection, which may also be necessary to issue NOC. This which the DMO shall do, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from today. 5. Now that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 reply to Ext.P7, it is for the Panchayat to pass final orders in the matter. This the Panchayat shall do expeditiously. Until orders are so passed coercive action pursuant to Ext.P7 will also be kept in abeyance. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC vi JUDGE 3