IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3256 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.R.AJAYKUMAR, S/O T.K.RAGHAVAN AGED 45 YEARS, OLIKKAL HOUSE VALIYAKULAM, CHERUKULANJI P.O. RANNI BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM SRI.PIOUS JACOB RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. VADASSERIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. E.R. PRASAD, S/O RAJANKUTTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ETTICKAL KIZHAKKETHIL VALIYAKULAM, CHERIKULANJI P.O. RANNI. 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.3256 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition under Article 226, petitioner challenges inter alia Ext.P12 order issued by the Grama Panchayat and also Ext.P13 notice issued by the very same Panchayat. In prayer c in the writ petition, a direction is sought to the first respondent Grama Panchayat to grant certified copies of the resolution rejecting Ext.P10 application for licence on the basis of which only Ext.P12 communication is now been issued to him. Apart from applying for certified copy of the resolution, the petitioner also prays for a direction that he be issued with certified copy of the authorisation on the basis of which one Sri.K.S. Muraleedharan could represent Sri.E.S.Prasad, the second respondent before the Panchayat committee while Ext.P10 application was being considered by the Panchayat pursuant to Ext.P11 judgment. The petitioner submits that he has already filed an application for obtaining certified copies and it is during the pendency of those applications that he was issued with Ext.P13 notice. Ext.P13 WPC.No.3256/08 2 refers to as many as 7 items and 7th one is a direction from the State Human Rights Commission in HRMP 3576/06. The above direction issued by the Human Rights Commission has been issued by that Commission without any notice to the petitioner at all, it is alleged. 2. In the nature of the orders which are being passed hereunder, in my opinion, it is not necessary to issue notice either to the Panchayat or to the second respondent. The basic order which is challenged by the petitioner is the resolution of the committee of the Panchayat deciding to reject Ext.P10 application for licence. To challenge that resolution before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the petitioner will require certified copy of the resolution. The petitioner claims to have filed an application for obtaining certified copy. According to him it was relying on testimony rendered by a totally unauthorised person namely Sri.K.S. Muraleedharan that the above resolution was adopted by the Panchayat and therefore in order to enable him to raise proper grounds against the resolution, he will require a certified copy of the authorisation, if any given to Sri.Muraleedharan by the second respondent. He has submitted application for certified copy of the authoristation also. WPC.No.3256/08 3 Accordingly I dispose of the writ petition directing the counsel of the first respondent to issue to the petitioner at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of petitioner placing before them a copy of this judgment: a) certified copy of the resolution deciding to reject Ext.P10 application. b) certified copy of the authorisation or the authority on the basis of which Sri.K.S. Muraleedharan was allowed to represent the second respondent before the Panchayat committee during the hearing of Ext.P10. 3. Once copies of resolution and authorisation are received by the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the third respondent. If appeal is preferred before the third respondent by the petitioner within two weeks of his receiving certified copy of the resolution, the third respondent will entertain the appeal and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law with notice to the Panchayat and the second respondent. 4. In this writ petition, petitioner has also challenged earlier orders-Exts.P4, P8 and P9. Even though the petitioner had approached this court earlier by filing W.P.(c)No.35741/07 challenging those orders, the ground of challenge of those orders WPC.No.3256/08 4 were not considered since it was submitted by the Panchayat that the petitioner's application for licence will be considered. Therefore, I permit the petitioner to impugn those orders also in the prospective appeal. 5. As per Ext.P13 notice, it is seen that the same has been issued by the Panchayat on the basis of certain directions issued by the Human Rights Commission in HRMP 3576/06. Since the petitioner asserts that those directions were issued without any notice to him at all, I direct the petitioner to move the Human Rights Commission itself seeking modification or review of those directions. Considering the above directions, the Panchayat is directed not to enforce Exts.P12 and P13 for a period of three months from today on condition that the petitioner shall keep the number of pigs in his farm always below 150 and subject to the further condition that he shall not slaughter the pigs or sell meat from the premises of the farm. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.3256/08 5