IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 36377 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, PADMA VILASAM, KARINGALKULAM, PALLIKKONAM, MARANELLUR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.PETITOINERS 2 TO 4 2. C.LEELA KUMARI, W/O LATE.P.RAMACHANDRAN, PADMA VILASAM, KARINGALKULAM, PALLIKKONAM, MARANELLUR, TVM 3. R.RAJU, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING -DO- -DO- 4. R.SATHEESAN, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING -DO- -DO- (Impleaded as per order dated 22.1.10 in I.A.579/2010) BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MARANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOOVALASSERY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, MARANELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOOVALASSERY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No. 36377 of 2009 -2- 6. SRI.MANOHARAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, MULAMPALLIKKONAM, KANDALA P.O., KARINGAL, MARANELLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. ANIL KUMAR, S/O.SEKHARA PANICKER, PUTHEN VEEDU, KARINGAL, MULANPALLIKONAM, KANDALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.K.K.THULASY BHAI,SC,POLLUTION C.BOA FOR R4 SRI.M.R.SARIN FOR R6-7 SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R2 & R3 SRI.M.S.KALESH FOR R2 & R3 SRI.HARISH GOPINATH FOR R2 & R3 SRI.V.VINAY MENON FOR R2 & R3 SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) FOR R2 & R3 GP K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).36377/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The complaint in this writ petition is against a poultry farm established by respondents 6 and 7 which according to the petitioner, is situated within 40 metres from his residential premises. The basis on which the writ petition has been filed is that the aforesaid respondents are conducting the poultry farm without obtaining licence from the Panchayat or consent from the Pollution Control Board or NOC from the District Medical Officer. 2. 6th respondent has produced Ext.R6(a) licence issued by the Panchayat till 31.3.2008 and Ext.R6(d) consent issued by the Pollution Control Board valid till 1.3.2012. Though the period of Ext.R6(a) has expired on 31.3.2008, belatedly 6th respondent submitted Ext.R6(b) application dated 20.2.2009 for renewal of the licence. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat, in view of the delay in submitting the renewal W.P.(C).36377/09 2 application, Ext.R6(b) was treated as an application for a fresh licence and on that basis, 6th respondent was asked to produce consent from the Pollution Control Board and the Primary Health Centre. It is stated that these documents have been produced and in view of the pendency of the dispute, orders have not been passed on the application. 4. However, even if Ext.R6(b) application is allowed, licence could have been granted only for the period upto 31.3.2009 and therefore, there is default on the part of the 6th and 7th respondents in not having applied for renewal of the licence for the period from 1.4.2009. Though this itself should have invited action from the Panchayat, Panchayat does not seem to have taken any action in the matter. Therefore, taking into account the fact that the 6th respondent is conducting the poultry farm was as on date and also that there is a valid consent from the Pollution Control Board, I feel that the respondents shall be given an opportunity to make application for licence for the period from 1.4.2009 or thereafter. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. W.P.(C).36377/09 3 5. It will be open to respondents 6 and 7 to apply for licence, for their poultry farm for the period from 1.4.2009 onwards producing necessary documents in support of their application. This the 6th respondent shall do within two weeks from today and if such an application is made, Panchayat will consider the application and pass final orders in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks thereafter. It is made clear that in case the decision of the Panchayat is to decline licence, Panchayat will ensure that the continued operation of the poultry farm is prevented. 6. The 4th respondent has issued Ext.R6(d) consent. In spite of it, it is the duty of the 4th respondent to ensure that the conditions of the consent order are scrupulously complied with by respondents 6 and 7. Therefore, it is directed that 4th respondent shall, conduct periodical inspection of the poultry farm and in case any defect is found, appropriate action in the matter shall be taken. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs