IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 23269 of 2011(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- BABY VARGHESE, S/O.Y.BABY, PUTHENVEEDU, ALEMCHERRY, EROOR.P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. EROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, EROOR.P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. PIN-691 312. 2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. HEALTH INSPECTOR, BHARATHIPURAM, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 312. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EROOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 312. 5. MERCY VARGHESE, PERUMANA PUTHEN VEEDU, ALEMCHERRY, EROOR.P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 312. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.R.ARUN RAJ, SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR(CHERTHALA). R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM R5 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL), SRI.P.N.ANOOP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.23269/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2011. EXHIBIT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2011. EXHIBIT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.05.2011. EXHIBIT.P4: -TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03.04.2011. EXHIBIT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 28.05.2011. EXHIBIT.P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE IN THE LOCALITY TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT.P7:-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE EROOR POLICE STATION ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDANTS'S EXHIBITS R5 (1) COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL DTD. 6.9.11. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23269 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of October 2011. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed for a direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders to stop the functioning of the poultry farm conducted by the 5th respondent and for other incidental reliefs. 2. It is not disputed that 5th respondent is conducting a poultry farm very near to the residence of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondent is conducting a poultry farm without obtaining license from the Panchayat and hence, running of the poultry farm is illegal. It is also pointed out that, poultry farm is causing serious health problems to the family members of the petitioner as well as the neighbours. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the reliefs aforementioned. According to the 5th respondent, the petitioner filed a fake complaint against him before the Panchayat W.P.(C) No. 23269/2011 2 and that the Panchayat without issuing notice for hearing the 5th respondent, issued an illegal order directing the 5th respondent to close down his business. The said order is challenged by the 5th respondent before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram as Appeal No. 656/2011 and that the same is pending consideration before the Tribunal. It is also pointed out that the Tribunal granted interim stay of operation of the order passed by the Panchayat directing the 5th respondent to close down the poultry farm. R5(1) is the copy of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 6.9.2011. 3. In the light of the fact that, statutory appeal is pending consideration before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, the only direction that can be issued by this Court is to dispose of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram to consider and dispose of the Appeal No.656/2011 after hearing all the affected parties. It is pointed out that the petitioner is not a party in Appeal No.656/2011. Since the petitioner is also an affected party, it will be open to the petitioner to W.P.(C) No. 23269/2011 3 prefer an application for impleading himself as an additional respondent in Appeal No. 656/2011. If an application for impleading is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the Tribunal shall consider the application for impleading and pass appropriate orders. The appeal shall be disposed of within a period of two months thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al