IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 13115 of 2011(L) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ A. VIJAYAKUMAR, ATHIRA BHAVAN, PALAKUZHI, MURIYANKARA, PARASSALA.P.O, PROPRIETOR J.J BROILER, PULAYANVILA, INKAMAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEYYATINKARA - 695 018. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION - 695 022. 3. ANIL KUMAR, PULAYANVILA VEEDU, INKAMOM DESOM, PARASSALA.P.O - 695 022. 4. THANKAMONY, PULAYANVILA VEEDU, NAGARUKAVU, INKAMOM, PARASSALA - 695 022. ADDL. R5 TO R7 R5 PARASSALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PARASSALA. R6 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP. BY ITS ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 13115 of 2011(L) -2- R7 MEDICAL OFFICER, TALUK HOSPITAL, PARASSALA. *[ADDL. R5 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/06/11 IN I.A.8535/11] ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB FOR R-3 SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR ADDL.R-6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13115 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2011- 12 BY PARASSALA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE 'CONSENT TO OPERATE' CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY HEALTH AUTHORITIES. EXT.P4:- THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED IN BETWEEN MANIKANDAN & PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED BY RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- PHOTOGRAPHS OF PRESENT CONDITION OF SHOP OF PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS EXTS EXT. R4(a):- TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.19/11/10 FROM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R4(b):- TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 29/12/10 OF SECRETARY, PARASSALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO PETITIONER. EXT.R4(c):- PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITINERS' SHOP AND SURROUNDING AREAS. EXT.R4(d):- TRUE COPY OF MASS PETITION SUBMITTED TO THE PARASSALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R4(e):- TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS. EXT.R4(f):- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS PREFERRED TO THE TAMIL NADU OFFICIALS. EXT.R4(g):- TRUE TRANSLATIONOF THE COMPLAINTS PREFERRED TO THE TAMIL NADU OFFICIALS. EXT.R4(h):- THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN TO BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER BEFORE NOTARY PUBLIC ATTESTING THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND SWEARING THAT THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN ON 02/06/11 EXT.R4(i):- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/06/11 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRPERSON, HEALTH AND EDUCATION STANDING COMMITTEE, PARASSALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. WP(C).No. 13115 of 2011(L) EXT.R4(j):- TRUE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE UNIT AND SORROUNDING BUILDINGS AND HOUSES. EXT.R4(k):- NOTIC NO.PCB/TVM-DO/ICO/AE-202/11 DT.27/06/11 ISSUED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R6(a):- A TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE NO.PCB/TVM-DO/ICO/PLF/1229/2011 EXT.R6(b):- A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.27/06/11 EXT.R6(c):- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.13115 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J The petitioner is the proprietor of a 'broiler chicken stall' run under the name and style “J. J. Broilers”, Inkamam, Parassala. According to the petitioner the stall was in existence since the last ten years and it is being conducted on the strength of licence issued from the Grama Panchayat. Petitioner is purchasing chicken from other farms and selling it through the stall. The petitioner obtained consent from the sixth respondent (Kerala State Pollution Control Board) as per Ext.P2 permitting to sell 100 numbers of dressed chicken per day. No objection certificate was also issued by the authorities of the Health Department, as per Ext.P3. According to the petitioner, slaughtering of chicken is done W. P. C. No.13115 of 2011 -2- in the shop on a daily basis, after making proper arrangements for removal of the waste to a pig farm situated nearby. 2. Complaint raised by the petitioner is regarding the illegal obstructions caused by respondent 3 and 4, which is alleged to be at the instigation of a rival business firm, a poultry farm conducted under the name and style “Nanchil Chickens” situated just opposite to the petitioner's shop. It is alleged that, even though the respondents 3 and 4 have no complaint against the chicken farm which is situated just opposite to the petitioner's shop, they started creating problems to the running of the petitioner's shop by publishing notice as that of Ext.P5. Respondents have created physical obstructions and threatened the petitioner from continuing business activities and they have openly declared that they will not allow the petitioner to conduct the stall. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 W. P. C. No.13115 of 2011 -3- complaint before the 6th respondent, no action was taken. Hence, the Writ Petition is filed. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4, it is stated that the shop in question is situated very close to the border of the state of Tamilnadu and that the petitioner is bringing large quantities of chicken from Tamilnadu, which is being slaughtered in the shop. It is alleged that the shop is situated in a thickly populated area where several houses and shops exist in the immediate vicinity. It is the complaint of respondents 3 and 4 that, 4 to 5 truck loads of chicken are being brought by the petitioner on every day during night, which is killed and dressed between 8.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m., and despatched to various places in the early morning. The shop of the petitioner does not have any facility or capacity to carry out slaughtering of such large quantity of chicken and the waste and effluents are not being properly managed. The accumulated waste is causing W. P. C. No.13115 of 2011 -4- health hazards and is also causing pollution to the drinking water facility in the nearby areas. The foul smell emanating from the shop is also causing nuisance, are the allegations. It is further alleged that the shop of the petitioner was closed pursuant to steps taken by the Grama Panchayat, as evident from Ext.R4(b). But after about one and half months the functioning restarted without making any improvements in the conditions. The respondents 3 and 4 are alleging that the various consent and licences are obtained without revealing the real situation and the stall is being conducted in violation of conditions stipulated by the Pollution Control Board in Ext.P2. 4. Considering the rival contentions, we directed the additional 6th respondent to conduct an inspection and to file a report regarding the situation prevailing. In the report filed by the 6th respondent on 22/07/11, it is mentioned that the consent to operate was granted on 01/04/11 limiting the W. P. C. No.13115 of 2011 -5- functioning with respect to a quantity of 100 numbers of chicken per day. It is further stated that, on 07/02/11 and 14/03/11 inspections were conducted on the basis of complaints received from the nearby residents and thereafter Ext.R6(a) was issued to the petitioner incorporating strict conditions. Subsequently, when inspection was conducted on 24/06/11 it was noticed that the unit was not functioning in a hygienic manner providing adequate waste water treatment facilities as well as facilities for disposal of solid wastes. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued as per Ext.R6(b), to which the petitioner submitted Ext.R6(c) reply stating that he had complied with all the conditions incorporated in the consent and that the unit is functioning in a neat and hygienic environment. On the basis of the reply further inspection was conducted on 22/07/11. It is stated that at the time of the said inspection the slaughtering and dressing area and settling sections are W. P. C. No.13115 of 2011 -6- kept very neat and hygienic and provision was seen provided for stocking of chicken in the backside of the dressing area. The liquid waste is also seen collected and disposed of to the septic tank/soak pit system. Hence, the report of the 6th respondent is to the effect that, the unit can be permitted to operate with strict adherence to the conditions stipulated. 5. From the circumstances narrated above, it is evident that, if the petitioner is providing adequate facilities in strict adherence to the conditions stipulated by the 6th respondent in Ext.P2 and in Ext.R6(b), the functioning of the petitioner's stall can be permitted. But it is to be made clear that the petitioner should strictly adhere to the quantity of chicken stipulated and permitted i.e. is 100 numbers of chicken per day. In order to ensure proper conduct of the shop, without causing any nuisance to respondents 3 and 4 or any neighbouring residents or shop owners, we feel that it is W. P. C. No.13115 of 2011 -7- necessary to have constant inspection and vigil over the situation by the competent authorities, viz. the 6th respondent as well as the second respondent. 6. Therefore, we dispose of the Writ Petition by issuing directions to respondents 2 and 6 to conduct periodic surprise inspections both during day time and if possible during night time, in order to ensure that the petitioner is conducting business activities in a hygienic manner without causing any public nuisance. The respondents 3 and 4 also will be at liberty to point out and inform the respondents 2 and 6 about illegal activity if any conducted by the petitioner in violation of the conditions stipulated. 7. However, it is made clear that the respondents 3 and 4 are not entitled to create any physical obstruction or to cause any impediment to the functioning of the petitioner's stall, by taking law into their own hands, and if any such instance is reported the 2nd respondent should take effective W. P. C. No.13115 of 2011 -8- steps to avert such situation. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-