M.A.Varghese v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/9TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 8354 of 2015 (T) --------------------------- PETITIONER:
------------------ M.A.VARGHESE, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.OUSEPH, MALAPPILLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM ANGAMALY.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. PARAKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PARAKADAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH MOOZHIKULAM, KURUMASSERY P.O., PIN-683 572.
3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM-682 011.
Addl.4. POLY M.A., S/O.AUGUSTY, AGED 46, MELAPPILLY HOUSE, PULIYANAM PO., PARAKADAVU IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.03.2015 IN IA.4517/2015. R4 BY ADV. SRI.RANJIT BABU R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.B.DAYAL R1&3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI MUHAMMED SHAFI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 8354 of 2015 (T) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE PANCHAYATH SUBMITTED BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC DATED 18.12.2013.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE HEALTH SUPERVISOR, CHENGAMANAD DATED 4.2.15.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 25.2.15 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 25.2.2015.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE dl/
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.8354 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March 2015
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider Exts.P3 and P4 representations at the time of considering the application proposed for conducting a poultry and cow farm by the additional 4th respondent in Re- Survey No.200/4 of Parakadavu village.
2.
Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that so far no such application has been received. 3.
The submission of the petitioner is that conduct of such a cow/poultry farm will cause severe nuisance and pollution in the neighbouring locality. Hence unless appropriate sanitation measures are taken to ensure that no pollution is being caused, the grant of permission may affect the interest of the petitioner as well.
4.
Learned counsel for the Panchayath would however submit that on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner, the parties were called and conciliation efforts are being taken by the Panchayath in this regard.
5.
Having regard to the aforesaid submission, I do not think that any further direction is required to be passed in this case. However, since the petitioner has expressed an apprehension regarding nuisance/pollution if the poultry/cow farm is permitted to be conducted in the said area, if at all any such application is filed by the additional 4th respondent or any other person claiming under him, petitioner shall also be heard before passing appropriate orders.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr