IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 13060 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.F.DAVIS, S/O.FRANCIS, KAKKASSERY HOUSE, MATTOM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KANDANASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MATTOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE PRESIDENT, KANDANASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MATTOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR. 4. THE HEALTH SUPERINTENDENT, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, PAZHANJI, PONKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. GEORGE, U.D.CLERK, KANDANASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MATTOM, THRISSUR. *ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED: R6. JAYAKRISHNAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN PANICKER, AGED 41 YEARS, PERIANGATTUKALARIKKAL HOUSE, KANDUIYOOR, P.O.MATTOM, THRISSUR - 680 602. (*ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 2/06/2009 IN I.A.NO.6444/09) R1 & R2 BY ADV.MR.P.RAMACHANDRAN R3 BY MR.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.CONTROL BOARD ADDL.R6 BY ADV. MR.SHOBY K.FRANCIS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13060/2009 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH ON 20/08/2006 FOR THE PERIOD 1/04/2006 TO 31/03/2007. P2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.7792/2009 DTD. 17/03/2009. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 8/04/2009. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD.13/04/2009. P5: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ST.JOSEPH HOSPITAL, CHOONDAL DTD. 13/04/2009. P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DTD. 15/04/2009. P7: COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 21/04/2009. P8: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ST.JOSEPH HOSPITAL, CHOONDAL, THRISSUR ON 21/04/2009. P9: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 21/04/2009. P10: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.22/04/2009 SIGNED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P11: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 7/03/2009. P12: COPY OF LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 12/08/09. P13: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/08/09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES: R1(A): COPY OF THE NO.E6-8896/07(1) DTD. 13/04/2009 BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR. R1(B): COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.IV/09 DTD.2/04/2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. R1(C): COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 18/04/2009 BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, PAZHANJI. Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.13060/2009 B R1(D): COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 8/04/2009 THE 3RD RESPONDENT, THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. R1(E): COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/04/2009 BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THRISSUR. R6(A): INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.NO.4375/09 DTD. 25/02/09 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. R6(B): PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE POLLUTION GENERATED BY THE PIGGERY. R6(C): COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.24/03/09. ANNEXURE R3(A): COPY OF THE ORDER OF REFUSAL OF CONSENT DTD. 29/04/2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.13060 of 2009-B = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P10 whereby he has been essentially ordered to close down a piggery. Whatever be the contentions of the petitioner, the larger question that arises for decision in the writ court is the fact that the operations were continuing in a manner injurious to public health. I had, therefore, issued an order on 28.8.2009 which reads as follows: “1.The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking stay of Ext.P10 which is challenged on the ground that it has been issued by an incompetent authority. The larger issue on the face of the court of justice is as to whether the petitioner, who, WP(C)13060/09 -: 2 :- admittedly going by the submissions made today on his behalf, has 50 pigs in his pig farm, should be permitted to continue his operations in a manner injurious to public health, as is disclosed by the materials on record. In April, 2009, the Pollution Control Board has filed a report stating that at the time of inspection, ordour nuisance could be experienced even at the nearby residences. The PCB accordingly refused consent to operate. This was four months ago. Later, an order was issued on 17.7.2009, enabling the petitioner to update the establishment to make it eligible for continued operation. That order was issued after noticing Ext.R6(c) which evidences that the Public Health Authorities are also unhappy with the manner in which the Panchayat is permitting activities in violation of the D & O Rules. 2. What transpired after that interim order is that on 24.7.2009, the petitioner again applied to the PCB for consent to operate. On 12.8.2009, directions were issued by the PCB WP(C)13060/09 -: 3 :- after an inspection on 5.8.2009. Now, the petitioner says that he is awaiting the assistance of the National Institute of Inter Disciplinary Science & Technology, Pappanamkode, referred to in the PCB communication dated 12.8.2009, which is Ext.P12. He says that after that, he will make a proposal for the implementation to the PCB. It is further stated that the petitioner had contacted the National Institute of Inter Disciplinary Science & Technology, which, in turn, has told the petitioner that they could visit the premises only after Onam holidays. 3. The materials on record categorically demonstrate that the petitioner cannot continue with the activities awaiting all the aforesaid clearance and have the pigs kept in unhygienic and shabby manner in which it is now. Learned counsel for the Panchayat is right in saying that he is hiding away even the true figure before the public. Taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into WP(C)13060/09 -: 4 :- consideration, it is directed that the petitioner will be permitted to keep the pigs for a period of one week from today and if he does not dispose off or remove the pigs from the place in question, the Panchayat authorities will be at liberty to take action for disposal of those pigs in accordance with law and any loss sustained by the Panchayat in that regard would be recovered in terms of law. Post for further consideration on 8.9.2009.” 2.That order was issued following an earlier order dated 17.7.2009 which recorded the fact that even the public health authorities are unhappy with the manner in which the panchayat is permitting the activities in violation of the D & O Rules. 3.In the aforesaid circumstances, when the matter was taken up day before yesterday, the counsel for the panchayat stated that he has written instructions that the panchayat proceeded to WP(C)13060/09 -: 5 :- remove the pigs, close the piggery and auction off the pigs, however that, not a single pig was found in the site. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from his client, stated that the said statement is not true and there were half a dozen pigs even now available. 4.This matter is taken up today to further ascertain the situation. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even this morning he has instructions from his client that he has 6-7 pigs, as of now. 5.With the aforesaid, rather than niceties of the rules governing licences, what is more important is the requirement to ensure that no activity is carried on without proper licence and without clearance of the public health authorities. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is ordered directing that the first respondent panchayat will ensure that necessary WP(C)13060/09 -: 6 :- action is taken to strictly enforce the provisions of law to ensure that public health and hygiene is secured and no activity is carried on, except in accordance with law. Any request of the petitioner for modified licence, if made within a week, will also be decided upon within a further period of one week. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/100909