Kerala High Court
Venukuttan R vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2022
W. P. (C) No. 2659 of 2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 2659 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:
VENUKUTTAN R.
S/O RAVEENDRAN, CHOWALLOOR, IDAKKIDOM PO,
EZHUKONE, KOLLAM-691 505
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.BABU RAJAN
SRI.K.JALADHARAN
SRI.T.A.SREE KUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE SECRETARY
KAREEPRA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KAREEPRA PO, KOLLAM-691
509
3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT
OFFICE, USHUS BUILDING, BIG BAZAR, KOLLAM-691 001
4 VIJAYA KUMAR
MANNAMKONATHU PUTHANVEEDU, CHOWALLOOR, IDAKKIDOM
PO, KOTTARAKKARA, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM-691 505
BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR CHELUR
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. T. NAVEEN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W. P. (C) No. 2659 of 2016 -2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2022
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following
reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take
immediate steps to close down the Piggery Farm run by the 4 th
respondent;
ii. Declare that the 4th respondent has no right to run the
Farm in violation of the Panchayat Raj Act and Rules and
Environmental laws."
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged illegal functioning of a
Piggery conducted by the 4th respondent in the name and style 'Vijaya
Hatchery Farm' at Idakkidom, Kollam District. According to the
petitioner, he is residing 35 meters away from the farm and shares a
common boundary.
3. That apart it is submitted that from the year 2008 onwards
various petitions were filed against the said farm alleging serious
illegalities in the conduct of the farm. Petitioner has also narrated in
the writ petition the steps taken and the representation submitted
before various statutory authorities including the Pollution Control
Board, the RDO, the District Medical Officer etc.
4. The sum and substance of the contention is that even though a
consent to operate is issued by the Pollution Control Board, none of
the mandatory requirements and the conditions prescribed in the
consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board is complied
with by the 4th respondent who is conducting the Piggery. Even though
notice is served on the 4th respondent, no counter affidavit is filed.
5. Anyhow the subject issues raised in the writ petition revolves
around various factual circumstances that are to be deciphered by the
statutory authority who are duty bound to carry out periodic inspection
in order to ascertain as to whether the conditions and the statutory
requirements are followed by the person who is conducting the
Piggery.
6. In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that
the writ petition is disposed of with suitable directions.
7. I have heard, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State
Pollution Control Board Sri. T. Naveen along with Adv. Chithra
Chandrasekhar and learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent
Sri. Sreekumar Chelur along with Sri. Appu Ajith and perused the
pleadings and material on record.
8. On an analysis of the pleadings put forth by the petitioner and
the documents produced along with the same, I am of the considered
opinion that the subject issue raised by the petitioner requires
emergent attention of the appropriate statutory authority.
9. Needless to say, a Piggery can function only after securing
license from the Secretary of the concerned Grama Panchayat and
after securing consent to establish and operate from the Kerala State
Pollution Control Board.
10. From the pleadings and the documents produced by the
petitioner, it is evident that the 4 th respondent has secured necessary
license and consent from the Pollution Control Board, however it is
contended by the petitioner that none of the conditions prescribed in
Ext. P11 consent has been followed by the 4th respondent and therefore
the petitioner is put to innumerable difficulties and losses since he is
sharing a boundary with the 4th respondent. Petitioner has also
produced a series of photographs in order to depict and demonstrate
the unhygienic conditions remaining in the farm.
11. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of
directing the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and the Secretary
of Kareepra Grama Panchayat to conduct periodical inspection of the
Piggery in question and identify as to whether the license issued to the
4th respondent is current and the consent issued by the Pollution
Control Board is renewed from time to time and the conditions
contained thereunder are followed by the Piggery owner.
The first of such inspection shall be conducted within two weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after providing
notice of participation to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
JUDGE
Eb
///true copy///
P. A. to Judge
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2659/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 30/10/08
EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 11//4/12
EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 10//9/12 OF THE
RDO, KOLLAM
EXHIBIT P4 A COPY OF THE LETTER NO. K6.1073/12 DT.
17/10/12
EXHIBIT P5 A COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER DT. 20/8/15
EXHIBIT P6 A COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE
COMMISSIONER DT. 20/8/15
EXHIBIT P7 A COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE HEALTH
INSPECTOR
EXHIBIT P8 A COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 12/11/15
EXHIBIT P9 A COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DT. 7/11/15
EXHIBIT P10 A COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 11/11/15
EXHIBIT P11 A COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 13/11/15
EXHIBIT P12 COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS
