IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32047 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.MADHU @ JOHNY, KANJIRAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KANJIRAVILAKOM, THIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THIRUPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY SECRETARY, THIRUPURAM P.O. 2. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. T.EDISON, ANEESH BHAVAN, KANJIRAVILAKOM, THIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.32047 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P3 orders in this writ petition. By Ext.P2 order, the Ombudsman for Local Authorities has directed the Panchayat to ensure that the petitioner fills up the cow dung pit maintained by the petitioner, as per the order dated 11.3.2005 of the Panchayat. Pursuant to that order, Ext.P3 notice has been issued by the Panchayat to the petitioner directing him to close the pit. According to the petitioner, rearing of cow is the only means of livelihood of the petitioner and if Exts.P2 and P3 are implemented, it would affect the livelihood of the petitioner. He further submits that the 3rd respondent has 16 cents of property and therefore, it would not affect the 3rd respondent. 2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner. 3. From Ext.P2, I see that Ombudsman has only directed the Panchayat to take further steps in accordance with the earlier order dated 11.3.2005. That order is not under challenge before me. The petitioner has not challenged that order earlier also. w.p.c.32047/08 2 That being so, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Exts.P2 and P3 alone. In any event, the Ombudsman has found that the cow dung pit causes severe environmental pollution. That being so, I am not inclined to entertain the challenge against Exts.P2 and P3. In the above circumstances, the petitioner makes a fervent plea for one month's time to comply with the directions in Exts.P2 and P3. Taking a lenient view, while confirming Exts.P2 and P3 orders, I direct the Panchayat to give the petitioner one month's time to comply with the directions in Ext.P3. The writ petition is disposed of above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.32047/08 3