WP(C) No. 22714 of 2012 · Kerala High Court

WP(C).No. 22714 of 2012 (L) 3. HEALTH INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE HEALTH INSPECTOR,WADAKANCHERY, THRISUR DISTTRICT. PIN 680 582.4. NAVAJYOTHIPURUSHA SWAYAM SAHAYA SANGAM, REG. NO.426/09,VAROLIPADAM, WADAKNCHERY BLOCK, THRISSUR DIST.PIN.680582. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SRI. S.JAMAL R4 BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:NS WP(C).No. 22714 of 2012 (L) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1 :PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SHOPS AND BUILDING WHERE THE 4TH RESPONDENT FUNCTIONING CHICKEN STALL.EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :EXT.R2(a) : COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE DECISION NO.55 OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DATED 19.09.2012.EXT.R4(1) : COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES DATED 14.09.2012.EXT.R4(2) : COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONGWITH THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE AND RENT AGREEMENT SUBMITTED ON 07.08.2012 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.EXT.R4(3) : COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALOGNWITH THE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 03.10.2012 GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.EXT,R4(4) : PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SEPARATION OF WALL BETWEEN THE TWO ROOMS OF THIS RESPONDENT AND 1ST PETITIONER.EXT.R4(5) : PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE LEACH PIT FOR THE COLLECTION OF LIQUID OF THE RESPONDENT STALL.EXT.R4(5)(B) : PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING LEECH PIT AND LID FOR COLLECTION OF LILIQUID WASTE OF THE RESPONDENT STALL./ TRUE COPY /NS P.A. O JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN,J--------------------------------W.P.C. No.22714 of 2012--------------------------------Dated this the 30th November 2012J U D G M E N TThe complaint of the petitioners is regardingExt.P2 Sanitary Fitness Certificate issued by the 3rdrespondent to the 4th respondent.

According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 has been issued without conducting aproper site inspection or assessing the real situation prevailing in the locality. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent has conducted a site inspection and reported that the site is unfit to be used for slaughtering and vending chicken. Therefore, the petitioners seek the issue of appropriate writs and orders quashing Ext.P2.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2ndrespondent. According to the 2nd respondent, a decision has been taken by the Panchayat Committee by passingExt.R2(a) resolution to grant licence to the 4th respondent. However, proper safeguards have also been incorporated in Ext.R2(a) whereby the 4th respondent has been directed to W.P.C. No.22714 of 2012 2get necessary permission from the Pollution Control Boardbefore starting the business. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent producing photographs of the premises from which the chicken stall is proposed to be conducted. According to Sri. Sivan Madathil who appears for the 4threspondent, the chicken stall has not been started since no permission as required from the Pollution Control Board has been obtained so far. Therefore, complaints of the petitioners are without any basis and the writ petition itself is premature, it is pointed out.

I have heard the Counsel for the petitionerSri.K.B. Arunkumar, Adv. Santhosh P. Poduval who appears for the 2nd respondent and Sri. Sivan Madathil who appears for the 4th respondent.

It is clear from the documents produced that no licence to conduct the chicken stall has been issued to the W.P.C. No.22714 of 2012 34th respondent so far. Though it is true that the Panchayathas passed a resolution Ext.R2(a), the same is of no consequence for, the Secretary is the licencing authority under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). According to the 4th respondent, an application for licence has already been submitted to him. The 2nd respondent would have to consider the application of the 4th respondent in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon in exercise of his power under Section 232 of the Act. The 4th respondent would also have to obtain necessary permission from the Pollution Control Board before starting the chicken stall. Atthis stage, none of the reliefs sought for by the petitioner need be granted. It is sufficient that the 2nd respondent isdirected to consider the application of the 4th respondent and to pass necessary orders thereon.

The Counsel for the 4th respondent has a further contention that petitioners 2 to 5 are persons who are conducting chicken stalls, which fact has not been disclosed W.P.C. No.22714 of 2012 4in the writ petition. Therefore, the 2nd respondent would also have to ascertain whether the objections are motivated by trade rivalry. If the objections are genuine and bonafide such objections shall also be considered by the 2nd respondent before issuing final orders on the application for licence submitted by the 4th respondent.

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application for licence submitted by the 4th respondent in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously, after considering the objections of the petitioners, if they arebonafide. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGENS