IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23375 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.O. JOSEPH, KARINGEN, NADUVATTOM P.O., PIN 683 574, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS SMT.TULASI PANICKER RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. AYYAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., MANJAPRA (VIA), PIN - 683 581, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, AYYAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., MANJAPRA (VIA), PIN 683 581, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 3. THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, AYYAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., MANJAPRA (VIA), PIN 683 581, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE HEALTH OFFICER & HEALTH SUPERVISOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, ANGAMALY. 5. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23375/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2543/04 OF ANGAMALY SRO IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN AND ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PIG FARM. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2004 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DT 10.3.2008 ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 11.4.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENCE DT 2.7.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT DT 2.7.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 10.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE SANITATION CERTIFICATE DT 16.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 11.7.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 16.7.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 23375 OF 2008 G ==================== Dated this the 8th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he has been running a pig farm for the last 3 years. According to the petitioner, though applications have been made well in time, Panchayat had not issued any licence, but however he was functioning on the strength of deemed licence as provided in Section 236 (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is stated by the petitioner that by Ext.P3 order, Panchayat had granted him permission for constructing a shed subject to the conditions mentioned in Ext.P3. He also says that on completion of the construction, by Ext.P7, he had applied for assignment of number to the shed and orders on that application were also not passed. 2. In the meantime, according to the petitioner, deemed licence was expiring and thereupon he submitted Ext.P6 application for renewal of the licence and even that application is kept pending. It is while so, that by Ext.P10, a memo, he has been asked to forthwith close down the pig farm. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed mainly complaining that WPC 23375/08 :2 : while Ext.P6 application for licence is pending, stop memo has been issued. 3. Though notice has been served on the respondent Panchayat by special messenger, there is no representation on their behalf. 4. It is seen that by Ext.P6, petitioner has sought grant of licence for the year 2008-09. It is also seen that by Ext.P7, he has applied to the Panchayat for assignment of building number for the shed that he had constructed on the strength of Ext.P3. It is during the pendency of these two applications that Ext.P10 stop memo has been issued, for which I see no justification. In my view, the Panchayat should first consider these applications and only thereafter, should they have taken such a coercive action 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. (1) That the Secretary of the respondent Panchayat shall consider Exts. P6 and P7 applications submitted by the petitioner. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. (2) Before orders are passed, petitioner shall also be given an WPC 23375/08 :3 : opportunity to make his representations. (3) Pending orders on Exts.P6 and P7, I direct that the implementation of Ext.P10 shall be kept in abeyance. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent Panchayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp