IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12955 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- V.A. VENU, AGED 55, S/O. ANIRUDHAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, WEST CHALAKUDY DESOM, WEST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, MANAGING PARTNER, KRIPA BONE INDUSTRIES, KOTTAT, ANNALLAUR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.THOMAS J. ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. K.P. KELAPPAN, AGED 65, S/O. RAMAN, KANYEDATH HOUSE, THURUTHIPARAMBU DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK - 691 585. 2. M.M. CHANDRAN, AGED 40, S/O. MANIKYAN, MUTHIRITHIPARAMBU HOUSE, THURUTHIPARAMBU DESOM, ALOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK - 691 585. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 732. 4. CIRLCE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 732. *ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED *5. MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 732, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. *ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07/06/2011 IN I.A. NO.8513/11. R1, R2 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.C. DEVY R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. C.M. CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 12955 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 04.07.2009. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS DATED 17.12.2010. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE DATED 25.09.2010. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 27.07.2010. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 01.05.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a) : COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE DATED 09.05.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** W.P(C) No.12955 of 2011-T ***************************** Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner has come to this Court seeking issue of directions to respondents 3 and 4 to afford protection to the petitioner for running Kripa Bone Industries. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is duly licenced by the Panchayat to undertake the activity of manufacturing organic manure. He is duly licenced by the 5th respondent panchayat. Respondents 1 and 2 and their men are causing illegal obstruction to the running of his activity. It is, in these circumstances, that the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition. 3. Notice was ordered. Respondents 1, 2 and additional 5th respondent have entered appearance through the same counsel. The learned counsel submits that the panchayat(R5) has now permitted the petitioner to undertake the activity without using bones as raw material. Use of bones as raw material was causing atmospheric pollution and foul smell was emanating. In these circumstances, panchayat has taken a W.P(C) No.12955 of 2011-T 2 decision on 09.05.2011 to permit the petitioner to run the organic manure manufacturing activity without making use of any bones. According to the petitioner, he is now willing to run the industry strictly in accordance with the provisions of the permission granted by the panchayat in Ext.R5(a) – as per the decision dated 09.05.2011. The learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 5 submits that in that event, no objection whatsoever shall be raised by respondents 1, 2 and 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accepting that undertaking, proceedings can now be closed. But it may be ensured that respondents 1 and 2 do not violate the undertaking. 4. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 5. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the organic manure manufacturing activity shall be undertaken without making use of any bone as raw material. 5. In the result: a) This Writ petition is allowed; b) The submission of the learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 5 as also the learned counsel for the petitioner are accepted; W.P(C) No.12955 of 2011-T 3 c) No further specific directions need, in these circumstances, be issued, we are satisfied. If there be any such obstruction notwithstanding this undertaking by the learned counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 5, the petitioner shall be at liberty to complain to respondents 3 and 4, who shall thereupon afford necessary protection to the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/