IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13517 of 2009(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. MR. SHYJU MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 39 YEARS, MUNDAKKL HOUSE, CHINIKUZHI.P.O., MANCHIKKAL, IDUKKI DIST. 2. MR. BIJU.P.V., S/O. VIJAYAN, AGED 37 YEARS, PARAKKAL HOUSE, UDAMBANOOR, EDAMARUK, IDUKKI DIST. 3. MATHAI, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 57 YEARS, NARITHOOKKIL HOUSE, CHEENIKKUZHY.P.O., MANCHIKKALLU, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. MR.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE UDUMBANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UDUMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UDUMBANNOOR, IDUKKI DIST. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MATHEW VADAKKAD R1 BY ADV. MR.RAJAVIJAYARAGHAVAN MR.R.RANJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.13517 of 2009-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.Petitioners are shown to be running a poultry farm. The first respondent issued a stop memo Ext.P3. Admittedly, the petitioners do not have a licence to run the poultry farm. The Government officials appear to have noticed that there was large scale death of poultry. This led to the issuance of Ext.P4 by the Village Officer. 2.As of now, the petitioners state that they have obtained the consent of the Pollution Control Board and that they aspire to get licence since the third respondent DMO has visited the site. Issuance of licence has to be done by the competent authority. A decision in that regard has necessarily to be come from that authority. In the absence of licence, the petitioners are not entitled to carry out the functioning of the WP(C)13517/09 -: 2 :- poultry farm. Against Ext.P3 the petitioners have filed Ext.P5 appeal. That, obviously, will take the natural course in terms of law. In so far as Ext.P4 is concerned, the argument on behalf of the petitioners is that it is insufficient in as much as the Village Officer is incompetent to issue any such notice. Though the learned Government Pleader is unable to point out any provision of law authorizing the Village Officer to issue such a notice, it is stated that Ext.P4 was issued at the instructions of the superior authorities. In the normal course of action, any prevention of an illegal act is to be done in the exercise of the police powers of the State. Such powers are particularly vested in different officers through statutory empowerment. The Village Officer is not an authority on whom any such authority is conferred. Therefore, Ext.P4, by itself, does not stand. However, the petitioners will not be entitled to carry out the functioning of the poultry farm except with the sanction of the Grama Panchayat and the other WP(C)13517/09 -: 3 :- appropriate authorities in the Government and the Pollution Control Board as are required in terms of law. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: i. Ext.P4 is quashed without prejudice to the right of any authority to exercise statutory power, if called for. ii. Ext.P5 appeal filed against Ext.P3 would be considered and disposed of depending upon the decision that would be taken by all other relevant statutory authorities regarding the grant of permission as sought for by the petitioners and taking into consideration all attendant facts and circumstances, in accordance with law. No costs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/250509