IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 17919 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.V.THOMAS,AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.VARGHESE, MUNDUCHIRACKAL HOUSE, CHEENIKUZHI P.O. UNDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. M.V.JOSEPH, MANJAKADMPIL HOUSE, CHENIKUZHY P.O. THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.MANU TOM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF EKRALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THODUPUZHA 4. THE GREEN CHANNEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR & GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, IDUKKI. 5. THE UDAMBANNOOR PANCHAYAT, UDAMBANNOOR P.O. THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. MR.JOHN P. VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, POLIYAPARAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUPADOM, UDUMBANNOOR THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. MR.SHINE K.B. S/O. BALAN, KURUMULLARIYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPADOM, UDUMBANOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 8. MR.N.K.SCARIA, NADUVELI PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUPADOM, UDUMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 9. MR.SHAJI K.AUGUSTINE, S/O. AUGUSTIONE, KULATHINKAL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUPADOM, UNDUMBANNOOR THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. WP(C).No. 17919 of 2009 -2- 10. MR.KRISHNAN,KADUMATTIL HOUSE, CHEENIKUZHI P.O. UNDUMBANOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DIST. 11. MR.SHAMEER T.K. THAZHATTUKOLLIKUNNEL, CHEENIKUZHY P.O. UDUMBANNOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R8 & 9 SRI.K.I.SAGEER FOR R6-7 & R10-11 SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR R5 SRI.R.RANJITH FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17919 of 2009 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.3.08 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF WARD NOS.3 AND 4 OF UDUMBANNOOR PANCHAYAT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.4.08 SUBMITTED BY THE WOMEN WARD NOS.3 AND 4 OF UDUMBANNOOR PANCHAYAT BEFORE THE DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 31.3.08 ISSUED BY R6 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITION ORDER DATED 24.4.08 ISSUED BY R6 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.6.08 PASSED BY R6 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.6.08 SUBMITTED BEFORE R1 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.6.08 PASSED BY R1 EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.4.08 OF THE HEALTH SUPERVISOR OF MUTTAM PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21.4.08 SUBMITTED BY R5 EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 5.4.08 SUBMITTED BEFORE R2 BY THE TAHSILDAR EXT.P11- TRUE COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE NO.C3-4695/08 DATED 18.8.08 BY DMO, IDUKKI EXT.P12- TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 24.6.08 SUBMITTED BY DMO IDUKKI BEFORE SDM, IDUKKI EXT.P13- TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.A3/1476/2008 DATED 29.10.08 BY R5 EXT.P14- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.2.09 IN WP(C).33359/08 EXT.P15- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE STATE BOARD UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARDS AND INDUSTRIAL TOWNSHIP AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT. EXT.P16- TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.G.O.(Rt).631/2009/ID DATED 29.5.09 ISSUED BY R1 EXT.P17- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.5.09 FROM THE TAHSILDAR TO R2 EXT.P18- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY SOMY M.M., HEALTH SUPERVISOR AGAINST ONE K.K.KRISHNAN BEFORE THE JFCM, MUTTOM EXT.P19- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY SOMY M.M., HEALTH SUPERVISOR AGAOINST ONE JOHN P.VARGHESE BEFORE THE JFCK, MUTTOM EXT.P20- TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 5.5.09 WP(C).No. 17919 of 2009 -2- EXT.P21- TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 5.5.09 EXT.P22- TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 5.5.09 EXT.P23- TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 25.9.09 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE UDUMBANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT ALONG WITH RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT EXT.P24- TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 6.10.09 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17919/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P13 and P16. 2. Respondents 6 to 11 applied to the 5th respondent Panchayat for licence to start Poultry Farms. Those applications were rejected by the Panchayat for the reason that respondents 6 to 11 did not satisfy the conditions laid down by the Panchayat for grant of licence. Decision of the Panchayat was challenged before the Green Channel Counter constituted under Rule 12(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. By Ext.P13, the Green Channel Counter allowed the appeals. 3. Petitioners challenged Ext.P13 before this Court in W.P.(C). 33359/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P14 judgment permitting the petitioner to file an appeal to the State Board constituted under the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development W.P.(C).17919/09 2 Act, 1999. Accordingly Ext.P15 appeal was filed. That was dismissed by Ext.P16. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P13 and P16. 4. It is pointed out that immediately after Ext.P13 was passed by the Green Channel Counter, licence was granted to respondents 6 to 11 and on the strength of which they have already started their poultry Farms. 5. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that an appeal before the Green Channel Counter was not maintainable. According to him, since the appeal was not maintainable, further appeal filed before the State Board also was not maintainable. Although there is substance in the contention, still, having regard to the fact that the licences have already been granted to respondents 6 to 11 on the basis of which they have also established their Poultry Farms, I do not think at this distance of time, that this Court should pass an order resulting in the invalidation of licences that are already granted or to the closure of the Poultry Farms. Therefore, I do W.P.(C).17919/09 3 not think it necessary to examine the merits of the contentions raised. 6. However learned counsel for the petitioners points out that while granting licence to respondents 6 to 11, Panchayat did not ensure compliance with the conditions laid down by itself for grant of such licences. In my view, there is no justification for any such relaxation and the Panchayat should have ensured compliance with the conditions laid down by it for granting licence. Panchayat should also ensure that the Poultry Farms conducted by respondents 6 to 11 do not cause any nuisance or pollution to the residents of the area. This can be achieved only by the periodical inspections which the officers of the Panchayat shall conduct and if there is any default on the part of respondents 6 to 11, necessary action shall also be taken. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs