IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34785 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJI PHILIP, PANDIYAPPILLIL, PALLIKKATHODU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL SRI.ANILKUMAR.K.N.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PALLIKKATHODU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, 2. THE SECRETARY, PALLIKKATHODU GRAMAPANCHAYAT, ANIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, PANCHYAT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON 04/12/2008, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 34785 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4th December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether a person who runs a piggery for the purpose of sale of pigs is liable to take out licence from the Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (for short 'D & O Rules') or whether it is sufficient if he takes a licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Pigs and Dogs) Rules, 1998 (for short 'Pigs and Dogs Rules'). 2. The petitioner started a pig farm in the year 2003 at Pallikkathodu, within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent-Panchayat. Since, according to the petitioner, no licence was required for running a piggery at that time, no licence was taken. However, on a complaint from some persons, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued a notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to close down the piggery, even though the petitioner is stated to have complied with all the conditions prescribed by the Medical Officer, Paika, the District Medical Officer, Kottayam and Pollution Control Board. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Panchayat Committee, which was rejected. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. That revision was allowed and the order of the Panchayat was set aside. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to submit an application for licence, if the Panchayat passes a resolution making it obligatory to take out a licence for running a piggery. Thereafter, the 1st respondent Panchayat passed a resolution imposing licence for piggery under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Pigs and Dogs) Rules, 1998, to which the petitioner submitted an application for licence. Petitioner's application for licence was rejected by the Panchayat. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Secretary refusing licence to W.P.C. No. 34785/2008 -: 2 :- the petitioner. The Panchayat committee set aside the order of the Secretary and directed the Secretary to pass fresh orders. Again, the Secretary rejected the application for licence submitted by the petitioner. 3. Pursuant to the direction from this Court, the Panchayat committee considered the appeal filed by the petitioner but rejected the appeal and directed closure of the piggery. That order was challenged in revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal by Ext. P.13 order set aside the order of the Panchayat committee, but directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application for licence under the D & O Rules. That order to the extent it directs the petitioner to submit an application for licence under the D & O Rules is under challenge before me. 4. The contention raised is that the petitioner is not liable to take out a licence under the D & O Rules, but is liable to take out licence only under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Pigs and Dogs) Rules, 1998. According to the petitioner, for raising of pigs, what is relevant is only the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Pigs and Dogs) Rules, 1998 and not the D & O Rules. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that when specific rules relating to pigs have been framed by the Government, the general rules applicable to trades and factories are not applicable to pigs. The petitioner also relies on a decision of this Court in Thomas George v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2005(4) KLT 562 for the proposition that for a pig farm what is relevant is the Pigs and Dogs Rules. 5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. 6. I am of opinion that the Pigs and Dogs Rules would be applicable only for rearing or keeping pigs for domestic purposes and W.P.C. No. 34785/2008 -: 3 :- not for rearing and keeping pigs for the purpose of sale, which is squarely covered by the D & O Rules. Pigs and Dogs Rules Rules are framed under clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which reads thus: “(ii) as to the licensing of pigs and dogs and the disposal of unlicenced pigs and dogs.” Rule 3 of the Rules Reads thus. “3. Control in rearing of dogs and pigs:- (1) A Village Panchayat may decide by resolution that no person shall, from the date as may be specified, rear or keep dogs or pigs in the Village Panchayat area without a licence of the Village Panchayat and not in accordance with the conditions of the licence. (2) The Secretary shall publish copy of the decision of the Village Panchayat under sub-rule (1) in the office of the Village Panchayat, notice boards of the Panchayats of that Village Panchayat area and in other public places and bring the decision of the Panchayat to the notice of the public by a pamphlet. (3) The decision of the Village Panchayat shall be intimated in the next meeting of the Gramasabhas.” Rule 4 contains the licensing section, which reads thus: “4. Licence:- If any Village Panchayat takes a decision under Rule 3, then, every person possessing or having control of any dog and or pig shall, before the date specified in the decision, submit an application to the Secretary showing the details such as the age, colour and breed of the animal together, with a fee of rupees ten for licence from the Village Panchayat to rear or keep in possession each such animal. (2) If a dog or a pig comes into the possession of a person in any way, after the date specified in the decision of the Panchayat, he shall file an application for licence regarding such dog or pig under sub-rule (1) within one month. W.P.C. No. 34785/2008 -: 4 :- (3) The applicant shall, along with an application under sub-rule (1) or sub-rue (2), produce a certificate obtained from a veterinary surgeon certifying that the dog has been inoculated against rabies. (4) The Secretary shall, along with the licence, issue a sealed metal token as an indication thereof and the owner shall keep it tied in the neck of the animal. (5) The owner shall rear the dog or pig for which the licence has been issued in his premises itself and shall not allow it to stray and provisions shall be made in the licence accordingly. (6) The period of a licence shall be till the end of the respective financial year and the licence shall be got renewed for the succeeding financial year before the expiry of that period by submitting application together with a fee of rupees ten. (7) The Secretary shall keep a register containing the detail regarding the issue and renewal of licence.” The above provisions sufficiently indicate that the Rules are intended for licensing pigs which are reared and kept otherwise than for trade. I am of opinion that dogs and pigs are animals by whose very nature it is necessary to regulate their rearing and keeping even if they are not kept for sale, and therefore the Government thought it necessary to provide for licensing of pigs and dogs even for rearing and keeping the same for domestic purpose. Therefore, where pigs are not reared and kept for sale, but only for own use, it was necessary to have a separate licensing system, for which only the Pigs and Dogs Rules have been framed. In other words, Pigs and Dogs Rules are applicable only when pigs and dogs are reared or kept purely for domestic purposes. This is abundantly clear from the Rules themselves, relevant portions of which are quoted above. It is particularly relevant to note that the words used are “rearing or keeping dogs”. 7. On the other hand, the D & O Rules are applicable to the owner or occupier of every place used for the purposes specified in W.P.C. No. 34785/2008 -: 5 :- Schedule I of the Rules. Item 130 of Schedule I of the D & O Rules specifies “poultry, pig, goat – Storing, sale.” That makes is clear that when any person intends to engage in the trade of selling poultry, pig or goat, a licence under the D & O Rules is mandatory. It is relevant to note that D & O Rules were promulgated in 1996 whereas the Pigs and Dogs Rules were promulgated subsequently in 1998. That would also go to show that the rule making authority was aware of the fact that the D & O Rules were applicable only when pigs are stored for sale. It is common for people to have dogs and pigs purely for domestic purposes, for which D & O Rules would not be applicable, and because of the nature of these animals, the rule making authority wanted separate licensing in respect of pigs and dogs which are reared and kept for domestic purposes only, which resulted in the Pigs and Dogs Rules. Therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that when pigs are reared and stored for the purpose of selling the same commercially what is required is a licence under the D & O Rules. The essential difference between the two licences is that for a licence under Pigs and Dogs Rules, the licence fee is only Rs. 10/-, whereas for a licence under D & O Rules, the licence fee is as per Schedule II thereof, which is on the basis of average daily turnover . When for poultry and goat which are traded commercially the licence fee is on the basis of daily turnover, there is no reason whatsoever why for trading in pigs, the licence fee should be only Rs. 10/-. This is another reason for holding that for commercial trading in pigs a licence under D & O Rules is mandatory. 8. The reliance by the petitioner on the decision of Thomas George's case (supra) is misplaced. The question as to whether for sale of pigs licence under D & O Rules or under Pigs and Dogs Rules is applicable or not was not a question considered in that decision at W.P.C. No. 34785/2008 -: 6 :- all. There, the only question considered was whether for rearing pigs a licence under Pigs and Dogs Rules is necessary. The Court only held that a pig farm cannot be conducted except after obtaining licence as required under law. For the above reasons, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner that for running a pig farm, a licence under Pigs and Dogs Rules alone is mandated by the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules. In that view, there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/