IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6496 of 2011(J) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SHIBU JACOB, S/O.JACOB, POOVAM, PANNIYOOR, PALLIVAYAL, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KURUMATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KURUMATHOOR, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, KURUMATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KURUMATHOOR, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 142 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. R1,2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.NARAYANAN SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA SRI.P.V.JOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.6496 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner was directed to close down the piggery as per Ext.P11 order dated 10.1.2011 by the first respondent. Up to the year 2003-2004, he was running the same on the strength of a valid licence. After its expiry, the petitioner did not take appropriate action for getting it renewed. When the respondents initiated steps against the functioning of the piggery, he has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.17611/2010. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment with liberty to the petitioner to submit appropriate application in the prescribed form for licence to run piggery within the local limits of the Grama Panchayat, to the competent authority under the panchayat and in turn, the said authority was directed to consider the application expeditiously and also to maintain the status quo till the disposal of the said application. Obviously, in compliance with the said directions, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 application on 3.12.2010 before the first respondent. The same was considered by the first respondent and disposed of as per Ext.P10. A perusal of Ext.P10 would reveal that the said application was rejected W.P.(C) NO.6496/2011 2 mainly on the ground that the application was not in the prescribed form. That apart, it was found that the functioning of the piggery is causing health hazards. The piggery is being run in a room bearing No.KP-1-355 and the said building belongs to another person by name Amanthra Koloth Geetha. The petitioner had not produced any document to show the requisite consent from the owner of the said building. That apart, it was found that along with the application, he had not produced the requisite documents or certificates from the concerned veterinary doctor. It is on the aforesaid grounds that Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner on 3.12.2010 was rejected as per Ext.P10. Aggrieved by Ext.P10, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P12 appeal before the second respondent. It is still pending. In the meanwhile, the first respondent initiated steps for implementing Ext.P10 as per Ext.P13. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said action on the part of the first respondent in attempting to implement Ext.P10 order during the pendency of Ext.P12 appeal. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. It is admitted that as against Ext.P10 order, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as W.P.(C) NO.6496/2011 3 per Ext.P12. It is still pending before the second respondent. The said authority is clothed with the power to dispose of the said appeal. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that this Court need not consider the various contentions raised by the petitioner on merits, at this stage. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P12 appeal expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is to be noted that while disposing W.P.(C). No.17611/2010 as per Ext.P6 judgment, this Court directed the respondents to maintain the status quo. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondents are bound to maintain status quo till the disposal of Ext.P12 appeal and it is ordered accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.6496/2011 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.6496/2011 5