IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 19903 of 2008(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- C.VIDYADHARAN, L.U.SADANAM, MUKKOLA, VIZHINJAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN SRI.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. VIZHINJAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIZHINJAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. S.DEVARAJAN, DEVASREE, MUKKOLA, MULLOOR, VIZHINJAM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC, PCB FOR R3 SRI.K.K.THULASIBHAI, SC, PCB FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.19903/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPORT OF KERALA KAUMUDI ON 23/2/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY M.NANDAKRISHNAN, DEPUTY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A): COPY OF LICENSE NO.14/112/06-07 DTD. 15/05/2006 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(B): COPY OF 'CONSENT TO OPERATE' DTD. 10/07/2008 ISSUED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R2(C): COPY OF NO OBJECTION NO.C2-18150-08 DMO DTD. 11/07/2008 ISSUED BY DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT.R2(D): COPY OF DELIVERY NOTE DTD. 18/04/2008 ISSUED BY KERALA STATE POULTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED. EXT.R2(E): COPY OF DELIVERY NOTE DTD. 18/06/2008 ISSUED BY KERALA STATE POULTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 19903 OF 2008 T ==================== Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the main complaint is that the 2nd respondent is maintaining a poultry farm, within the area of the 1st respondent Panchayat without having obtained any licence from the Panchayat. On this basis, petitioner seeks direction for the closure of the poultry farm. 2. From the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat, it is evident that the licence as renewed has expired on 31/3/2007. It would now appear that the 2nd respondent has submitted an application for its renewal and that the same was received by the Panchayat on 24/5/2008. It is also admitted by the Panchayat that subsequent thereto, 2nd respondent has produced documents including the consent obtained from the Pollution Control Board. However, in the meanwhile, the Panchayat realising that the poultry farm was functioning without the licence has issued Ext.P3 stop memo on 28/5/2008. 3. Now that the 2nd respondent has filed an application as stated by him and as confirmed by the Panchayat, it is necessary that the WPC 19903/08 :2 : Secretary of the 1st respondent Panchayat shall consider the application in the light of the documents produced by him in support of his request for renewal of the licence. This the Secretary shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. 4. It is stated by the counsel for the 2nd respondent that his farm has about 1100 chicks, being reared in the farm. Though the fact remains that he did not have licence, still it is a reality that he has available stock of chicks and therefore I direct that pending orders on the application made by him for licence, the 2nd respondent will be permitted to rear and sell the available stock of chicks. 5. It is made clear that this order will not enable the 2nd respondent to increase the stock in any manner and it will be open to the Secretary of the Panchayat to conduct periodical inspection, if necessary to ensure compliance of this direction. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp