IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 16093 of 2008(N) PETITIONER: SIBY JOSE, AGED 32, S/O. IYPE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, KODUVELI P.O., MULAPPURA KARA,NEYYASSERY VILLAGE,THODUPUZHA TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENTS: 1. THE KARIMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KARIMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMANNOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 581. 2. THE SECRETARY, KARIMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE KARIMANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARIMANNOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 581. 3. BABY PUTHENPURACKAL, S/O. VARKEY, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, MULAPPURAM KARA, NEYYASSERI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. KUMARAN KALLAMMACKAL, KALLAMMACKAL HOUSE, MULAPPURAM KARA, NEYYASSERI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. THOMAS MABRAYIL, MABRAYIL HOUSE, MULAPPURAM KARA,NEYYASSERI VILLAGE THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. DEEPU DIVAKARAN, KARIKUDIYIL HOUSE, MULAPPURAM KARA,NEYYASSERI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. GEORGE PAILY, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, MULAPPURAM KARA, NEYYASSERI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 16093 OF 2008 - N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd June 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P10. 2. Ext. P10 conveys the decision of the respondent Panchayat not to grant licence to the petitioner for his poultry farm. According to the Panchayat, it has resolved in its meeting not to grant the licence as there is objection from the neighbouring residents on account of the alleged pollution caused. Petitioner would on the other hand submit that he has obtained necessary consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and that the District Medical Officer has also granted Ext. P3 NOC. It is stated that the people who are objecting to the poultry farm are residing at far away places and that the objections are raised for malafide reasons. 3. In my view, since Ext. P10 discloses the decision of the Panchayat declining licence to the petitioner, the course open to the petitioner is to pursue the statutory remedies that are provided. In W.P.(C) No. 16093OF 2008 -2- view of the availability of an alternate and effective statutory remedy, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition. 4. If Ext. P10 is to be implemented straight away that will lead to the closure of the poultry farm, and hence, in order to enable the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy and obtain interlocutory orders safeguarding his interest I feel that implementation of Ext. P10 should be deferred for a shortwhile. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that Ext. P10 will be kept in abeyance for a period of 3 weeks from today and in the meanwhile, it will be for the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies that are available. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-