IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.A.No.2227 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.10637/2006-N, DATED 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- ---------------------------------------- SHEEBA JOSEPH, KIZHAKKEVEETTIL, THEEPANY, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. THOMAS MATHEW, CHAIRMAN, ACTION COUNCIL, KUTTAPUZHA, THIRUVALLA. R1 & R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.S.SUBASH CHAND. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.2227 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd December, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.10637 of 2006, dated 5th September, 2008. By the impugned order, while sustaining the orders passed by the Tribunal, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. (2) The facts in brief are: The licence of the appellant-petitioner for running the piggery was cancelled by the 2nd respondent-Municipal Secretary, as per Exhibit P14 order, on the allegation, that, the piggery is not run in accordance with the directions issued by the District Medical Officer (“DMO” for short) and the Pollution Control Board (“Board” for short) and it is found to be not advisable to continue the pig farm in the existing locality, which is a residential area. Aggrieved by the cancellation so made by the Secretary of the Municipality, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council, taking into consideration the plea of the petitioner and also the inspection report of the DMO, while affirming the orders passed by the Secretary of the Municipality, has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The orders so passed by the Municipal Council is called in question by the petitioner before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal, by its orders dated 7.2.2006, has dismissed the W.A.No.2227 of 2008 - 2 - appeal. The correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the authorities concerned were the subject matter of the writ petition. (3) The learned Single Judge has noticed, that, in Exhibit P21 order, the Tribunal has found, that, though the respondent-Municipality had directed the appellant to comply with certain directions to ensure that operation of the pig farm does not cause nuisance or pollution to the area, the appellant has not complied with those directions and, further, that, in the inspection of the pig farm on two occasions by the Board and the DMO, it was reported, that, operation of the pig farm is hazardous to the inhabitants of the locality and in spite of those reports, the appellant has not taken any positive steps to comply with the directions of the Municipal Secretary and, therefore, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there are no good grounds to interfere with the orders passed either by the Secretary of the Municipality or the Municipal Council. (4) The learned Single Judge, after going through the orders passed by the Municipal Council and also the Tribunal, has come to the conclusion, that, interference with the said order is not called for in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. (5) Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner in the writ petition is before us in this appeal. (6) Sri.B.Krishna Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit, that, the appellant has complied with all the directions issued by the DMO and also the Board. If that be so, the appellant W.A.No.2227 of 2008 - 3 - would approach the authorities and inform them, that, now that he has complied with all the directions issued by the DMO as well as the Municipality, it should reconsider the application filed by him. That exercise, the appellant has not done. Nor is there a prayer in the writ petition for a direction to the respondent-Municipality to accept his representation and consider the same in accordance with law. (7) Since all the authorities, on facts, have found that the appellant is running the pig farm in violation of the directions issued by the DMO and also the Secretary of the Municipality, in our opinion, we need not have to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities concerned, since the authorities are taking some interest to avert nuisance and pollution caused by the appellant-petitioner by running a pig farm in a residential area. (8) In the above view of the matter, we are of the view, that, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error whatsoever, which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge