IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20828 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KRISHNAN, AGED 39, S/O. CHAKALAYIL KUNJAYAPPAN, VADAMA DESOM, VADAMA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MALA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE HEALTH SUPERVISOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER, ALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. GOKULNATHAN, AGED 49, S/O. CHATHAMKUDAM THEYYAN, MALA DESOM, VADAMA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. SOBHANA GOKULNATHAN, MALA DESOM, VADAMA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER V MANU FOR R1 SRIA.G.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R5 SRI.DEVAN K.MENON FOR R5 SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO FOR R5 SRI.A.C.DEVY FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WPC 20828/2009) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY R3 DTD. 26.4.2008. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY R3 DTD. 12.3.2008. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY R3 DTD. 15.10.2008. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY R2 DTD. 10.6.2008. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. lgk THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.20828 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The 5th respondent has an activity, which may require licence. It is stated that she and two others have availed government support for a farm, rearing cows. The fourth respondent, her husband is stated to have leased an item of property to the fifth respondent for that purpose. The complaint raised about nuisance and violation of the municipal laws has to first gain the attention of the second respondent, panchayat. That authority states that the fifth respondent is essentially playing 'hide and seek', whenever a site inspection is conducted. It has necessarily to be ensured that any activity which requires the licence according to the municipal laws, is run only with such licence and under regulated conditions, otherwise it will lead to even issues relatable to health and hygiene. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, fifth respondent is directed to appear before the second respondent, who will issue necessary directions in relation to the matter. The petitioner will Wpc 20828/2009 2 also be heard. Either way, the second respondent will issue orders within a period of two weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. He shall state reasons for the decisions, since any person aggrieved can carry the matter for adjudication before the superior statutory authorities. All other issues left open. The interim order in force will continue until second respondent issues decision as aforesaid. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/9/9