IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10637 of 2006(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHEEBA JOSEPH, KIZHAKKEVEETTIL, THEEPANY, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.RAHUL VENUGOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADDL. RESPONDENT: 5. THOMAS MATHEW, CHAIRMAN, ACTION COUNCIL, KUTTAPUZHA, THIRUVALLA. (IMPLEADED AD ADDL.R5 AS PER THE ORDER DT. 22.8.06 IN IA 11598/06) BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW FOR R3 SRI.S.SUBASH CHAND - R2 SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R3 SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 10637/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 1.4.2002 ISSUED BY THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10.11.2000 IN RESPECT OF THE LICENCE FEE FOR THE YEAR 2000-2001. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14.12.2001 IN RESPECT OF THE LICENCE FEE FOR THE YEAR 2001-02. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 05.02.2003 IN RESPECT OF THE LICENCE FEE FOR THE YEAR 2003-2004. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 23.2.2004 IN RESPECT OF THE LICENCE FEE FOR THE YEAR 2004-05. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10.7.2005 ISSUED BY THE THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.6.2005 ISSUED BY THE THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.7.2005 FROM THE MUNICIPALITY. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.8.2005 IN W.P.(C) NO.23445/2005 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 1.9.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.9.2005. EXT.P14 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.9.2005 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P15 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 5.9.2005 BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, THIRUVALLA. EXT.P16 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5.9.2005. EXT.P17 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.9.2005 IN W.P.(C) NO.26826/2005 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P18 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2005. EXT.P19 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.12.2005 IN W.P.(C) NO.33901/05 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. WPC 10637/2006 EXT.P20 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17.1.2006. EXT.P21 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2006 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P22 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED NIL SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ENFIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXT.P23 - TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.9.2005 EXT.P24 - TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 4.11.2005. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 10637 OF 2006-N ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner was running a Pig Farm. On the allegation that it was not being run in accordance with the directions issued by the District Medical Officer and the Pollution Control Board, the Municipal Secretary cancelled its licence by order dated 2.9.2005. On appeal, the said decision was affirmed by the Municipal Council on 13.1.2006. Challenging that order, the petitioner filed Ext.P20 appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P21 order dated 7.2.2006. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “8. The Appellant who has been running a pig farm within the area of the Respondent Municipality was directed to comply with certain directions to ensure that its operation is not causing nuisance or pollution in the area and the Appellant has not complied with those directions and the Pollution Control Board and the District Medical Officer reported twice based on the inspection of the pig farm on two different occasions that operation of the pig farm is hazardous to the inhabitants in the locality. In spite of those reports the Appellant has not so far taken any positive steps to comply with the direction of the Secretary WPC 10637/06 2 and in that circumstance I find no sound and sufficient ground to interfere with the order of the Secretary on 2.9.2005 refusing permission to continue the operation of the Appellant's pig farm and the decision of the Municipal Council on 13.1.2006 dismissing the Appeal challenging that order and therefore I find that the Appeal is only to be dismissed.” Though this Court admitted the Writ Petition, no interim order was granted. The pig farm was already closed with effect from 23.1.2006. 2. Going by the reasons given by the Tribunal, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order Ext.P21 or the orders of the Municipal Secretary or the Municipal Council. On valid grounds, the impugned decisions were rendered. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. 5th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/