IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 26775 of 2009(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- RAJESH K.G., S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 31 YEARS, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, PULLOORAMPARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 603. BY ADVS. MR.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA MR.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THIRUVAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE THIRUVAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVAMPADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 603. 2. THIRUVAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF THE THIRUVAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVAMPADY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN-673 603. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVAMPADY POLICE STATION. 4. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, THIRUVAMPADY. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26775/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CONDITIONS INSISTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR SETTING UP OF PIG FARM IN THIRUVAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P2:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.49/09 DTD. 18.6.09 ISSUED BY THE VETERINARY SURGEON, VETERINARY DISPENSARY, THIRUVAMPADY. P3:- COPY OF THE CONSENT NO.PCB/KKD/DO/CO/781/08 DTD. 6.3.09 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. P4:- COPY OF THE CONSENT DTD. 27.6.09 ISSUED BY SRI. KULIRANKAL PREMACHANDRAN. P5:- COPY OF THE CONSENT DTD. 27.6.09 ISSUED BY SMT.SHYAMALA PARAVILAYIL. P6:- COPY OF THE CONSENT DTD. 27.6.09 ISSUED BY SMT.RADHA KIZHAKKETHIL. P7:- COPY OF THE CONSENT DTD. 27.6.09 ISSUED BY SRI.THORAKKAL SHAJI. P8:- COPY OF THE CONSENT DTD. 27.6.09 ISSUED BY SMT.SUSEELA SHAJU PARAVILAYIL. P9:- COPY OF THE CONSENT DTD. 27.6.09 ISSUED BY SRI.KANAT SREEDHARAN. P10:- COPY OF THE CONSENT DTD. 27.6.09 ISSUED BY SRI.PUTHUPPALLIL MICHAEL. P11:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 5.9.09 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS. P12:- COPY OF THE CHEQUE BEARING NO.598601 DTD. 5.9.09 FOR THE VALUE OF RS. 1000/- ENCLOSED ALONG WITH EXT.P11. P13:- COPY OF THE POST RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT UPON SENDING THE EXT.P11 APPLICATION TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P14:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.A1-3091/09 DTD. 19.10.09 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P15:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 6.11.09 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. R1(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18.9.09 OF THE THIRUVAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. R1(b):- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DT. 24.9.09. R1(c):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 17.7.09 FILED BY THE PANCHAYAT BEFORE THE JFMC-II, THAMARASSERY. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.26775 OF 2009 --------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner runs a piggery. He has no licence. He moved this Court saying that his application for licence is pending and an interim order was granted taking into consideration that the shop would be closed down over night. 2. The lst respondent Grama Panchayat is on record with Ext.R1(a) which shows that even before the institution of the writ petition, the petitioner's request for licence was rejected. But that was communicated to the petitioner only a day after this matter was admitted. But what is more undergoing is that the petitioner is surreptitiously suppresses the most relevant facts in this writ petition. The lst respondent Panchayat had filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner. This is evidenced by Ext.R1(c). Petitioner suffered a sentence by pleading guilty. This was much before the writ petition was not brought up. Had this -2- W.P.(C).No.26775/2009 Court been noted the fact that the petitioner was not only an accused but also suffered a sentence by pleading guilty. In relation to the activity as regards which he is invoking the writ jurisdiction, consideration at the stage of admission would have been totally different. With this situation, the petitioner, along with the reply, affidavit has placed a copy of yet another representation and prays to this Court to issue a direction to the Panchayat to consider the regularisation of construction made for the purpose of piggery. Issuance of writ in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary matter. Illegality, refusal or failure of duties would not generate the issuance of a writ, unless injustice needs to be clipped. One of the guiding principles in the jurisdiction is bona fides. Suppression of facts is never tolerated. The request for direction to consider the petitioner's application for regularisation is rejected. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with costs -3- W.P.(C).No.26775/2009 fixed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to the lst respondent. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. kcv.