IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 33376 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.R. SUNAJAKUMARI, PROPRIETOR, M/S. AISWARIYA POULTRY FARM, RS BHAVAN, VENGANINNA, KAZHIVOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 526. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU SRI.T.G.KALADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KANJIRAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, O/O. KANJIRAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANJIRAKULAM.P.O, 695 524, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. S. SHOBHANA, VENGANINNA ARAPPURA VEEDU, KAZHIVOOR, KAZHIVOOR.P.O, NELLIMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. S. SARASWATHI, W/O. JOHNSON, PLAVILA SARASWATHI BHAVAN, KAZHIVOOR.P.O, WARD NO.3, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, O/O. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, K.R. SANTHOSH KUMAR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD FOR R1 TO R5 SMT. K.K. THULASY BHAI, FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN , J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 33376 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Respondents three and four filed a complaint before the Ombudsman for LSGIs attributing the Secretary of the second respondent Panchayat with mal-administration. This allegation is made in relation to a poultry farm of the petitioner. Triggered by that complaint, the Panchayat Secretary interdicted the petitioner from carrying on the activity. The plea of the petitioner is that she has deemed licence in terms of Section 236(3) of the KPR Act, since the application for licence was not rejected within the statutory time frame. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has the clearance of the PCB authorities and in the light of such clearance, it is unnecessary to obtain the clearance of the Medical Officer. While this may be a case where the Panchayat Secretary has been woken up from his slumber by the interlocutory order issued by the learned Ombudsman, the petitioner can essentially get the situation rectified by moving WPC.33376 of 2009 : 2 : the learned Ombudsman. If this court is to entertain this writ petition, the proceedings before the learned Ombudsman would also get unnecessarily stultified and the Secretary of the Panchayat would have to be a swinging pendulum between the Ombudsman and the High Court. This will only affect the due administration of the Grama Punchayath. Therefore, if the writ petitioner moves the learned Ombudsman for relief, having regard to the facts and circumstances, it will be up to her to persuade the learned Ombudsman for an emergent consideration of her request for orders. Writ petition ordered accordingly without entering on merits. ( THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) jma