IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3593 of 2009(C) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C. VIDYADHARAN, L.V.SADANAM, MUKKOLA, VIZHINJAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER, SRI.SASITH PANICKER. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KERALA PANCHAYATH DIRECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KERALA PANCHAYATH DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. VIZHINJAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIZHINJAM.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. 4. S. DEVARAJAN, DEVASREE, MUKKOLA, MULLOOR, VIZHINJAM, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, VIZHINJAM, TRIVANDRUM. R1, R2 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.N. SUDHA DEVI. R4 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH. R3 BY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 3593/2009-C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 19903/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT SECRETARY TO THE PETITIONER ON 18/11/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH SECRETARY TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11/07/2008 ISSUED BY DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 10/07/2008 ISSUED BY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R4(c): COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 20/11/2008 ISSUED BY SECRETARY, VIZHINJAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.R4(d): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2008 ISSUED BY SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.3593 of 2009-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for implementation of Ext.P4 issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat seeking police help to stop the selling of chicken meat by the 4th respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that a poultry farm is being conducted without getting any proper licence from the various statutory functionaries as well as the local authority. In spite of the same, the 4th respondent is conducting the poultry farm and is selling fresh chicken meat for which no clearance of the Pollution Control Board or other authorities have been obtained. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is pointed out that the 4th respondent has obtained all the requisite licenses and permits for conducting the poultry farm. Ext.R4(a) is the copy of the certificate issued by the District Medical Officer. Ext.R4(b) is the copy of the 'consent to operate' issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Ext.R4(c) is wpc 3593/2009 2 the licence issued by the Panchayat for the period ending 31.3.2009. It is pointed out that the 4th respondent has filed an application for renewal of licence before the Panchayat and the Panchayat is not taking any action in the light of the pendency of the writ petition. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent is only conducting a poultry farm and he is not selling any chicken meat and is not conducting any chicken stall. Learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent also submitted that the Secretary has issued a letter stating that in the light of the pendency of the writ petition, the licence could not be renewed and after the disposal of the writ petition, the same can be renewed on a retrospective basis. 5. Going by the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it can be seen that Exts.R4(a) to R4(c) licenses and consent have been obtained from various authorities. The 4th respondent cannot have a right to conduct chicken stall as on today. But this will not stand in the way of the 4th respondent conducting a poultry farm for rearing chicken. 6. It is made clear that the Panchyat will take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with rules and the 4th respondent will be entitled to conduct activities which are only permitted by the Panchayat and in wpc 3593/2009 3 accordance with the terms of the licenses and permits issued by the various authorities. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/