IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3725 of 2009(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AVARACHAN @ AHRAHAM, S/O.MANI AGED 42 YEARES, RAVANADIYIL HOUSE, CHEMPERI PO., ERAVESSY AMSOM DESOM,TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, ERUVESSY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHEMPERI.PO., KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 3725 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is running a chicken farm in a building of his own. He has been served with Ext. P2 notice, whereby he has been directed to stop his business. According to the petitioner, Section 231 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is not applicable in the case of chicken farm and therefore he challenges Ext. P2 and seeks the following relief: “Issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext. P2 notice issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner.” 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is true that Section 231 does not apply to the petitioner's chicken farm. However, under Section 232, in respect of dangerous and offensive trades, a licence is mandatory. The Government has promulgated Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996, as per which, in respect of trades mentioned in Schedule I, a licence is mandatory. Item 130 of Schedule I to the said Rules relates to “Poultry, pig, goat - Storing, sale”. Item 85 relates to “Meat - Storing, preparing or selling”. Therefore, whether the petitioner is selling live chicken or chicken meat, the petitioner is liable to take out a licence for his chicken farm from the Panchayat. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess a licence. Therefore, I do not find anything wrong with Ext. P2 notice. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/