IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16771 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABDUL MAJEED.A, AGED 47, S/O.ABDUL KHADAR KUNJU, RESIDING AT DARU-UL-SALAM, NEDUMPANA P.O., NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, KULAPPADAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, NEDUMPANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 6. SUMSUDEEN, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, RESIDING AT KALLUVILA VEEDU, KALLUVILA JUNCTION, PUTHANKADA, KULAPPADAM, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR R3 SRI.R.RENJITH FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16771/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.9.10.06. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19.12.06. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.10.3.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.22.3.2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.26.3.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16771 OF 2008 V ==================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The non implementation of Ext.P3 order issued by the 3rd respondent Panchayat for preventing illegal slaughtering by the 6th respondent is the grievance raised in this writ petition. 2. Counsel enters appearance for the Panchayat and submits that they stand by Ext.P3 and that every endeavour will be taken for the implementation of the said order. Learned Government Pleader also on instruction submits that on being intimated of Ext.P3, they have already issued notice directing the 6th respondent not to continue the slaughtering of animals against the direction in Ext.P3. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that primarily it is the responsibility of the Panchayat to ensure implementation of Ext.P3 and that in the process, if any assistance of the police is required, they are willing to provide the same, provided a suitable request is made to the 4th respondent. 3. There is no appearance for the 6th respondent against whom the allegations are made and the direction in Ext.P3 issued. In view of the facts as stated above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the Panchayat shall implement Ext.P3 in its letter and spirit. WPC 16771/08 :2 : In case the Panchayat needs any assistance of respondents 4 and 5 for the due implementation of Ext.P3, it will be open to the Panchayat to approach the 4th respondent, in which case, the 4th respondent shall provide necessary assistance to the Panchayat in this behalf. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp