T.P.Lonappan vs The Secretary To Government Local Self ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 8713 Ker

Kerala High Court

T.P.Lonappan vs The Secretary To Government Local Self ... on 27 March, 2024

Author: P.V. Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 24449 OF 2015
PETITIONER:

          T.P.LONAPPAN
          AGED 66 YEARS
          S/O. POULOSE, THEETHAYI HOUSE, ELINJAPRA, VIA
          CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 721.

          BY ADV SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
          DEPARTMENT
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

    2     KODASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KODASSERY GRAMA
          PANCHAYAT, CHATTIKKULAM, THRISSUR - 680 721.

    3     SRI.BIJU M.D
          MECHERIL HOUSE, ELANJIPRA, CHALAKKUDY,
          TRICHUR DISTRICT - 680 728. (IS REMOVED FROM THE PARTY
          ARRAY AND SUBSTITUTED BY SHRI.M.U. JOHN, S/O ULAHANNAN,
          AGED 68 YEARS, MANGALAM KUNNEL HOUSE, ELINJIPRA P.O.,
          CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680728, AS PER ORDER
          DATED 26/05/2016 IN IA.NO.13608/2015).

    4     THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

 *ADDL R5 VINODH KAVUNGAL
          S/O ANTO KAVUNGAL, AGED 37 YEARS, ELINJIPRA P.O.,
          CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680728.
          *(ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26/05/2016
          IN.NO.13608/2015).
          BY ADVS.
          SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
          SUNIL N.SHENOI

          SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP
 WP(C) NO. 24449 OF 2015        2


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 24449 OF 2015               3

                         P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                  -----------------------------------------------
                        W.P.(C) No.24449 of 2015
                  -----------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024

                                 JUDGMENT

This petition is filed with the following prayers:-

i) Call for the records leading to the case and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P11 order passed by the Tribunal of Local Self Government Institutions,

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to implement the Agreement vide Ext. P3 in accordance with law,

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to conduct inspection in the new property purchased by the petitioner and grant approval to Ext. P12 plan to conduct a slaughter house,

iv) pass such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and

v)award costs.

2. The petitioner has been conducting a meat stall in the

2nd respondent Panchayat vide Ext.P1 licence. According to the

petitioner, Ext.P1 licence has been renewed on yearly basis and

Ext.P1 is the latest licence issued by the 2 nd respondent

Panchayat. When there was a notice from the 2 nd respondent,

the petitioner appraoched this Court by filing W.P.(C)

No.13179/2012 and as per Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed

the 2nd respondent to consider the objection of the petitioner

and pass final orders. As per the directions of this Court, the 2 nd

respondent considered the application of the petitioner and was

pleased to pass Ext.P6 order directing the petitioner to stop

functioning of the slaughter house. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the

petitioner appraoched the Tribunal for Local Self Government

Institutions and preferred Ext.P7 appeal. The Tribunal after

considering the facts and circumstances dismissed the appeal as

evident by Ext.P11 order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ

petition is filed.

3. Heard.

4. The petitioner challenge Ext.P11 order passed by the

Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The above

appeal was filed against Ext.P6 order. The Panchayat found that

the slaughter house of the petitioner is functioning in violation of

the Rules. The Tribunal after considering the entire contentions

of the petitioner, confirmed the above order. It would be better

to extract the relevant portion of the judgment.

"10.So, on going through the above rule it could be seen that no slaughter house could be established within 90 metres from any dwelling houses. Even though the additional respondents

contended that the slaughtering house is within the distance of 30 metres that is not born out from the sketch prepared by LSGD Engineer and in the description he did not specify the distance from the road to the slaughter house. Additional respondents has produced photographs of the appellant's slaughtering place containing six photographs. A by- line is seen just near to the slaughter house. But from the photograph the exact distance from the slaughter place to the road is not discernible. At any rate, has come out that there are 6 dwelling houses within the prohibited distances.

11. Apart from that that learned respondents took my attention to page No. 163 of the file which is a letter issued by the Health Inspector to the Superintendent, Social Welfare Centre, Elanjipra in connection with the result of biological test of samples of water taken from the nearby well of the slaughter house of the appellant in which it has been stated that the water in the six wells were below the quality prescribed and the presence of E-coli bacteria was in excess in all the wells. It is also stated that the wells and the toilets from which the samples were taken were beyond the distance prescribed as per rules and hence it is stated that there is possibility of causing water pollution since in the faecal matter of the animals and in their blood the of E-coli bacteria could be there.

12. Page No. 161 of the file is the covering letter of Superintendent of Community Health Centre forwarding the letter of Health Inspector referred above to the Secretary. So, the report of the Health Inspector and also the sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer, LSGD convincingly establish that there are dwelling houses within the prohibited distance of the slaughtering house and there is also pollution to the water in the nearby wells and the report of the Health Inspector is to the effect that there is possibility of excess E-coli bacteria in the wells from the faccal matters and blood of animals.

So the impugned decision taken by the Panchayat on the application filed by the appellant in not granting licence to the slaughter place is well founded. So, I don't find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned decision and consequential order issued by the Secretary. But I would also like to point out that there is no slaughter house in the Panchayat and as per Section 229 Panchayat may establish a slaughter house in all the Panchayat. The specific prayer of the appellant is to permit him to continue with the slaughtering till the Panchayat establishes a place for use as public slaughter house. But the proviso to Section 229 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act specifically states that if any complaint with respect to the conduct of slaughtering house has been received from the nearby residents action for starting slaughter house shall be taken only after detailed examination of the complaint. That is what has been done in the present case. So I don't find any revision to interfere with the same."

A perusal of the above order would show that the Tribunal

had considered all the contentions of the petitioner. There is

nothing to interfere with the above order. Consequently, this

writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24449/2015

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO CONDUCT THE SALE OF MEAT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER VIDE NO. A11 - 10327/11 ON 23.12.2011. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH INDICATING THE AREA WHERE THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE IS SITUAED AND THE NEARBY PROPERTIES.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 23.7.2013 IN WPC NO. 13179/2012.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 29.11.12013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. 1157/2013 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN APPEAL NO. 1157/2013 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN APPEAL 1157/2013. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT. 17.12.2013 IN IA NO. 2278/2013 IN APPEAL NO. 1157/2013. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 29.7.2015 IN APPEAL NO. 1157/2013 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SLAUGHTER HOUSE.