IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 35429 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SHIYAS.M.S., CHERTHALAKKAL HOUSE, KOONTHALLOR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION & WELFARE COUNCIL OF KERALA, CHEKKALAVILAVILAKAM JUNCTION KADAKKAVUR-695306, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. KADAKKAVUR VIKRAMAN. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MOHAMMEDKUNJU, CHIRAYARIKATHU HOUSE, KOONTHALLOOR CHIRAYINKEEZHU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KEEZHUVILAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH MUDAPPURAM.P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUCTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R3 SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 SRI.M.S.KALESH FOR R1 SRI.HARISH GOPINATH FOR R1 SRI.V.VINAY MENON FOR R1 SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) FOR R1 SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FOR R2 SRI.K.M.ANEESH FOR R2 SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35429 of 2010(C) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.11.2010 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE R3 EXT.P2 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.9.2010 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH ANOTHER BEFORE R2. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30.10.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR BEFORE R2 PANCHAYATH EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLALGE OFFICER ALONG WITH A PLAN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RDO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ON 4.11.2010. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2010 PASSED BY R2 AND SENT TO R1. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16..11.2010 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE R2. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 12.11..2010 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE R1 PANCHAYATH EXT.P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28..2.2011. EXT.P9 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE NEW SHED ADJACENT TO THE SHED. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE cl C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.35429 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011. JUDGMENT First petitioner is a resident of Koonthalloor area in Chirayinkeezhu and 2nd petitioner is an organization engaged in various social activities. They filed this writ petition mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to take steps to close down the poultry farm conducted by the 1st respondent and to seize the poultry and shift the poultry farm the place where it is, now, located. 2. Contention of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent is conducting the poultry farm unauthorizedly without obtaining licence from the concerned authorities and the requisite consent from the State Pollution Control Board. Taking note of the unauthorised functioning of the poultry farm belonging to the 1st respondent, Ext.P5 prohibitory order was passed by the 2nd respondent, it is contended. Their grievance is that despite the issuance of Ext.P5 prohibitory order, the 1st respondent is running the W.P.(C).NO.35429 OF 2010 : 2 : poultry farm. It is in the aforesaid circumstance that this writ petition has been filed mainly with the aforesaid prayers. 3. Learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the contentions raised in the writ petition. According to the 1st respondent, subsequent to the issuance of Ext.P5, he has submitted an application on 15.11.2010 before the 2nd respondent for getting requisite licence for conducting the poultry farm. That apart, it is contended that, in fact, no licence is required for conducting a poultry farm. There is incongruity in the said contentions. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the rival contentions raised, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the application, if any, submitted by the first respondent for licence to conduct poultry farm expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before passing any orders thereon, the 2nd respondent shall also afford W.P.(C).NO.35429 OF 2010 : 3 : opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well. Needless to say that in the meanwhile, if the 1st respondent is conducting the said poultry farm without the requisite licences as also the consent from the Pollution Control Board, the 2nd respondent shall ensure that it is not illegally functioning till such a decision is taken. In the light of specific allegation of the petitioners regarding pollution aspects, it will be appropriate for the 2nd respondent to put the 3rd respondent as well on notice before passing any orders thereon. Sd/= C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. cl