IMPORTANT POINTS
To fall within the definition of 'enterprise' under Act, 2019, the enterprises should be engaged in the manufacture of goods pertaining to any industry, specified in the First Schedule to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and that, there should be investment in plant and machinery.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Challenging Exhibit-P4 order passed by the Kerala Human Rights Commission in HRMP Nos. 6975/11/9/2019 and 6965/11/2019 dated 30.06.2020 and Exhibit-P5 proceedings of the Secretary of Chakkittapara Grama Panchayat dated 14.10.2020, instant writ petition is filed for the following reliefs:

(i) “Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibits-P4 and P5 holding that the said orders were passed against the prevailing laws.

(ii) Declare Exhibit-P4 order is not binding on the petitioner, as it is passed without notice to him.”

2. Facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner, a resident of Ward No.1 of Chakkittapara Grama Panchayat, Kozhikode, is conducting a pig farm in a remote area, following the norms prescribed, after successfully submitting application before the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Kozhikode, respondent No.3, under the provisions of the Kerala Micro Small & Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019.

3. Petitioner has further stated that before starting the pig farm, he has made arrangements for all the necessary infrastructures, including for waste management, as prescribed by the 3rd respondent, in order to avoid pollution in the locality, and submitted the application under Act, 2019 successfully through online and secured a receipt (Exhibit-P1). Due to the spread of COVID-19 pandemic, respondent No.3 could not conduct the second inspection for issuing the consent of Pollution Control Board. That being so, the Secretary of Chakkittapara Grama Panchayat, respondent No.1, issued Exhibit-P2 notice dated 18.09.2020 informing that the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, respondent No.2, has ordered to close down the pig farm run by the petitioner, after hearing him, and to appear on 06.10.2020 before him, for hearing.

4. Petitioner has further stated that on receipt of Exhibit-P2 notice, as directed, he appeared before the Secretary of Chakkittapara Grama Panchayat, respondent No.1, on 06.10.2020, and explained that the conduct of the pig farm is in accordance with the prevailing law. That apart, a written explanation (Exhibit-P3), along with a recently obtained test result of water collected from the nearby water source of his pig farm and tested at the laboratory, Centre for Water Resources Development and Management under the Government of Kerala [Exhibit-P3(a)] was also submitted by him before the 1st respondent on 06.10.2020.

5. In spite of the production of Exhibits-P3 and P3(a), along with a copy of Exhibit-P1 receipt issued under the Act, 2019, by the petitioner on 16.10.2020, the 2nd respondent passed Exhibit-P4 order dated 30.06.2020 directing the Secretary of Chakkittapara Grama Panchayat, respondent No.1, to give notice to the owners of the pig farms mentioned in the complaints, hear them, and take steps to legally close down the pig farms that are creating health issues. Pursuant to the said order, the 1st respondent has issued Exhibit-P5 proceedings dated 14.10.2020, directing to remove the pigs kept in the farms and close down the farms, within 7 days. Being aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition for the reliefs, stated supra:

6. Petitioner has contended that he is running the farm, in accordance with the prevailing laws, including the mandates prescribed under the Kerala Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019. The 2nd respondent has passed Exhibit-P4 order, without notice to the petitioner, and, therefore, it is illegal.

7. Petitioner has further contended that instead of following an illegal order of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the law and the contentions raised by the petitioner in Exhibit-P3 explanation. Petitioner is running the farm following all the conditions prescribed by the 3rd respondent. He is not aware about the case considered by the 2nd respondent in which, Exhibit-P4 order was passed and that he is not a party to it.

8. Petitioner has further con