IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 16377 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. A.N.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, 'DEVAKI MANDIRAM', PUTHENPEEDIKA, MELOODU BHAGOM, OMALLOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. A.N.SOMANATHAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, 'DEVAKI MANDIRAM', PUTHENPEEDIKA, MELOODU BHAGOM, OMALLOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN 689 645 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN 689 645 3. SANTOSH MURALI, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, NILAVINAMANNIL, PAIVALLY BHAGOM, OMALLOOR (P.O), PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN 689 647 4. UDAYAMMA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.SANTOSH MURALI, NILAVINAMANNIL, PAIVALLY BHAGOM, OMALLOOR (P.O), PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN 689 647 ADDL. R5 SENIOR REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU VIDE ORDER IN WP(C) DT. 5-8-11 ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI FOR R3 & R4 SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR FOR R3 & R4 SMT.SABINA JAYAN FOR R3 & R4 SMT.MINI.V.A. FOR R3 & R4 SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR ADDL R5 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA FOR R1 AND R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT NO. ICO/PTA/425/2009 DT. 21-1-2009 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT NO. 1C0/PTA/437/2009 DT. 4-2-2009 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF FIRST PETITIONER'S POULTRY FARM EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LICDNCE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF 2ND PETITIONER'S PAULTRY FARM EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 9-6-2011 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, OMALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONEF FOR THE PERIOD 9-1-2004 TO 31-3-2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 5-2-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE ENVIORNMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R3B TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 9-4-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE IN THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE SECRETARY OMALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.R3C TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 7-4-2011 SUBMITTED BY ONE VIJAYALEKSHMI RESIDENT OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT.R3D TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7-4-2011 SUBMITTED BY ONE THULASI RESIDENT OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER EXT.R3E TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 7-4-2011 SUBMITTED BY ONE RAJAPPAN ACHARI RESIDENT OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT. R3F TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 26-4-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OMMALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R3G TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE FARM WITH REFERENCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE NO.1C0/PTA/425/2009 DT. 21-9- 2009 ANEXURE R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE NO. PCB/PTA/437/2009 DT. 4-2- 2009 (TRUE COPY) PS TO JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C). No. 16377 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioners are brothers. The first petitioner is conducting a poultry farm under the name and style 'R.K. Poultry Farm' in a building situated in Omalloor Village. The second petitioner is also conducting another farm under the name and style 'A.N.S. Poultry Farm' in another building in the very same village. According to the petitioners, they are conducting the farms on the strength of valid licences obtained from the Grama Panchayat and consents obtained from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that respondents 3 and 4, who are neighbouring residents, are threatening the petitioners to close down their business activities and that they are creating obstructions to the movement of vehicles to and from the farms in question. It is stated that the WP(C). 16377/11 -2- farms are conducted in a most hygienic manner without causing any nuisance to the public or to the neighbouring residents. Against the threat and obstruction caused by respondents 3 and 4 the petitioners filed complaints before the second respondent as per Ext.P5. But no action was taken by the second respondent. It is urged by the petitioners that the inaction on the part of the second respondent is due to the undue influence exerted by the 4th respondent, who is working as a Circle Inspector in the Police Department. Under the above mentioned circumstances, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate direction for affording police protection. 3. When the matter came up for consideration on 5-8- 2011, the additional 5th respondent was impleaded suo motu. Additional 5th respondent was directed to conduct an immediate local inspection on the premises of the poultry farms and to submit a report to this Court. In the report WP(C). 16377/11 -3- filed by the 5th respondent, it is stated that an inspection was conducted on 10-8-2011 at both the farms. It is stated that at the time of inspection there were 200 birds in R.K. Poultry Farm and it is noticed that the first petitioner has got licence to rear 300 chicken. With respect to A.N.S. Poultry Farm, it is stated that 300 chicken is being reared in every batch. However, it is mentioned that both the poultry farms are being conducted in strict compliance with the conditions stipulated in the consents issued and that the petitioners are maintaining the poultry farms in a clean and hygienic condition. It is noticed that they have provided enclosed room with roofing for storing the saw dust mixed up with bird droppings, which is sold as manure. 4. Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that they have no intention to create any obstruction to the functioning of the poultry farms. But apprehension is expressed to the effect that if the WP(C). 16377/11 -4- petitioners are rearing more number of chicken than what is permitted, there will be chance of creating pollution problems and nuisance. Therefore it is requested that restriction should be imposed for strict compliance of the conditions stipulated by the Pollution Control Board. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances narrated above and also the contentions addressed by the respective counsel, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to pursue their business in accordance with the terms and conditions of the consents already issued by the Pollution Control Board. Nobody has got any right to cause physical obstructions to the business being conducted by them in a proper manner. 6. We therefore dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to take effective steps, if any physical obstruction is intimated and to afford protection to avert such obstructions and to continue smooth functioning of the WP(C). 16377/11 -5- poultry farms. 7. However, it is made clear that the petitioners should strictly abide by the conditions stipulated by the Pollution Control Board in the respective consents granted. It will be open to the respondents to raise complaints to the Addl. 5th respondent if there is any violations. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ksv/-