IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8826 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.R.SHIJU, NEDUNGATTEL HOUSE, VALANCHERY, KOLLERI P.O., POOTHADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.P.C.GOPINATH RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE POOTHADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POOTHADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER, POOTHADI, KENICHIRA P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. ADDL.R3. RAJU M.V., S/O.GOVINDAN, MARUTHOLIL HOUSE, VALANCHERY, KENICHIRA (VIA), KOLERY POST, WAYANAD DT. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA 6951/08 DT 12/6/2008) BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH NAIR FOR R1 SMT.CELINE JOSEPH FOR ADDL.R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 8826 OF 2008 A ==================== Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, a stop memo issued by the 2nd respondent Health Officer of the 1st respondent Panchayat. Among the various allegations in Ext.P3, one is that the piggery farm is run without a licence obtained from the 1st respondent Panchayat. 2. Counsel for the petitioner mainly raised the plea that the Madras Public Health Act, 1939, in terms of which Ext.P3 has been issued is inapplicable to the State of Kerala in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is plainly untenable for the reason that by an amendment to Section 1(2) of the Madras Public Health Act, 1939, the operation of the Act has been extended to the whole of Malabar District and the Kasargod Taluk of South Kanara District as defined in the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. If that be so, since the area in question comes within the erstwhile Malabar District and the Act is applicable. 3. The counsel for the petitioner concedes to the position as at WPC 8826/08 :2 : present licence has not been renewed by the Panchayat. But then it is a fact that the Panchayat has not passed final order on his licence application as well. Though it may be open to the Panchayat to pass any order as it deems fit on the application for licence, but then it being a statutory authority is expected to pass orders on the application, which it has not done. This the Panchayat shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks from today. It is directed that before final orders are passed, notice shall be given to the petitioner and also the additional 3rd respondent. 4. It is directed that in the meanwhile, for a period of 4 weeks from today, the interim order passed by this court dated 01.04.2008 directing that status quo be maintained, will remain in force. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp