IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15969 of 2009(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VARKEY, AGED 59, S/O. MATHEW, PULAKKUDY HOUSE, MUDAKKUZHA KARA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, PIN - 68E3 546, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADVS.MR.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) MR.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRTION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAURAM. 2. MUDAKIZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY SECRETARY, MUDAKUZHA.P.O - 683 546. 3. KURIAKOSE, S/O. PAILY, PATHICKAL HOUSE, MUDAKKUZHA KARA, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, PIN - 683 546, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. *ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED. 4. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KDAVANTHARA, KOCHI. 20. *ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 1.12.2009 IN IA. NO.13452/2009. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.MANU R2 BY ADVS.MR.RAJESH VIJAYAN, MR.K.N.ANIL KUMAR. R3 BY MR.K.SUNILKUMAR ADDL. R4 BY MR.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.15969/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.C2-27/09 DTD. 6.1.09 ISSUED FROM CENTRAL HATCHERY, CHENGANNOOR. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER ON 20.11.08 BEARING NO.A3-1201/08. P3:- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE INFORMATION OFFICER OF 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH ON 8.3.09. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 7.4.09 BEARING NO.A1-15(37(/09. P5:- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. P6:- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH ON 20.4.09. P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 23.5.09 BEARING NO.A3-269/09. P8:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONSENT DTD. 27.1.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT NO.509160 DTD. 27.1.2010 OF THE FEDERAL BANK LTD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE R.D.O. MUVATTUPUZHA. R3(b):- COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15969 OF 2009 (M) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is running a Quail farm in his residential property. The farm did not have any licence issued by the Panchayat. The 3rd respondent, a neighbouring resident, complained to the RDO and also to the Panchayat. It would appear that in order to resolve the controversy amicably, the President and other officials of the Panchayat called a meeting of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and in Ext.R3(b), the petitioner undertook to close down his farm by 31st of May, 2009. 2. In order to avoid compliance of Ext.R3(b) undertaking, on 20/4/2009, petitioner submitted an application to the Panchayat for the issue of licence. Panchayat did not consider the application and the petitioner also did not close down the farm as undertaken in Ext.R3(b). On 23/5/2009, Panchayat informed the petitioner its inability to consider the application for the reasons stated in Ext.P7, that the petitioner did not produce consent letters from the residents of the 50 metre radius of the premises of the farm and that the document of title produced by the WPC 15969/09 :2 : petitioner was not an attested one. On receipt of Ext.P7, without mentioning anything about Ext.R3(b) undertaking, and contending that it was without passing orders on the application for licence, the Panchayat issued Ext.P7, which will lead to the closure of the farm, the writ petition was filed with a prayer for a declaration that the farm does not require a licence. There is an alternative prayer that in case licence is required, Panchayat should be directed to pass orders on the application. On this pleadings, an interim order was obtained, and on that basis, the farm is still kept open. 3. Evidently, therefore, the petitioner has not disclosed complete facts before this Court in this writ petition and has obtained an interim order enabling to continue the farm, and thus avoided honouring Ext.R3(b) undertaking given by him. Therefore, although the writ petition merits dismissal for suppression of facts, still having regard to the fact that the farm is a running establishment, I am inclined to think that if the petitioner is willing to close down the farm as undertaken in Ext.R3(b), the Panchayat should consider the application on merits, with notice to him and the 3rd respondent. WPC 15969/09 :3 : 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- If the petitioner close down his farm within two weeks from today, the Panchayat will consider the application made by the petitioner for licence and final orders will be passed with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent within 4 weeks thereafter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp