Sathish Ninan, J.

The Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 29.08.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 25663 of 2015 by the petitioner in the Writ Petition.

2. The challenge in the Writ Petition was against the conduct of a poultry farm by the 3rd respondent in his property which is situated adjacent to the petitioner's property. According to the petitioner, the poultry farm is being conducted by the 3rd respondent nearly six meters away from the petitioner's residential house. Petitioner alleges pollution consequent to the conduct of the poultry farm by the 3rd respondent. It is alleged that the distance rule has been violated by the 3rd respondent while setting up the poultry farm. It is further alleged that the 3rd respondent's licence issued by the Panchayat expired on 31.03.2016 and the application for renewal of the licence was made by him only on 01.04.2016, i.e., after the expiry of the period of licence. This is in violation of Section 236 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short "the Act") and hence the application is not liable to be considered.

3. As noticed by the learned single Judge, and even in this appeal, no provision of law has been pointed out by the petitioner as to the existence of any distance rule applicable in so far as the establishment of the poultry farm is concerned. It is true that functioning of the poultry farm should not cause any pollution affecting the nearby residents. However, the Pollution Control Board has given its consent to the 3rd respondent and the consent is valid upto 31.01.2019. As has been observed by the learned single Judge, if there is any complaint regarding pollution, it is always open to the petitioner to take up the issue before the Pollution Control Board or the Panchayat in spite of the issuance of licence and consent to the establishment. In the event of there being such a complaint, necessarily the Pollution Control Board or the Panchayat will be duty bound to look into the same and give appropriate directions to the 3rd respondent to take the necessary mitigating measures and steps as may be directed. The authorities will have to see that such measures are properly implemented and the pollution is abated by the licensee.

4. The other ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that Section 236 of the Act stipulates that an application for renewal of licence has to be made 30 days prior to the expiry of the licence and not more than 90 days before the expiry of the licence period. In the instant case the licence has expired on 31.03.2016 and application for renewal of licence was made only on 01.04.2016. Application for renewal of licence ought to have been made 30 days prior to the expiry of the period, i.e., at least on 01.03.2016.

5. It would be apposite to refer to the relevant clauses of Section 236 of the Act which read thus;

"236. General provisions regarding licences and permissions.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in, or may be prescribed under this Act, every application for any licence or permission under this Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder, or for the renewal thereof, shall be made not less than thirty and not more than ninety days before the earliest date with effect from which, or the commencement of the period being three years or such lesser period as is mentioned in the application for which the licence or permission is required.

(3) Save as aforesaid, if orders on an application for any such licence or permission are not communicated to the applicant within thirty days or such longer period as may be prescribed in any class of cases after the receipt of the application by the Secretary, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the period, if any, for which it would have been ordinarily allowed and subject to the law, rules and bye-laws and all conditions ordinarily imposed.

(11) When any licence or permission is suspended or revoked or when the period for which it was granted, or within which application for