IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 2ND BHADRA, 1942 WP(C).No.3832 OF 2014(D)

PETITIONER:

RAMESHAN V., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. KUNHAPPU, VATTYANPOYIL, P.O. MAVILAYI, MUNDAYOD, PERALASSERI, KANNUR - 670 622.

BY ADVS.

SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SMT.C.S.RAJANI RESPONDEN TS:

THE PERALASSERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O. MUNDALUR, KANNUR - 670 622.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

24.08.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).29619/2011(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Panchayat Committee of the respondent Peralasseri Grama Panchayat to dispose of Ext.P5 appeal, which is one filed under sub- rule (1) of Rule 13 the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Livestock Farms) Rules, 2012, challenging Ext.P3 communication No.B1. 6595/13 dated 07.12.2013 of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, whereby the petitioner was informed that Ext.P2 application dated 11.11.2013 made for licence to conduct poultry farm cannot be considered since the building referred to in that application has already been demolished.

2. On 07.02.2014, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice to the respondent by speed post.

3. Today, when this writ petition came up for consideration along with W.P.(C)No.29619 of 2011 filed by the petitioner, that writ petition was closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue this writ petition seeking disposal of Ext.P5 statutory appeal. Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.29619 of 2011 read thus;

“8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P11 application made by the petitioner seeking licence to conduct poultry farm was rejected by the 1^st respondent Grama Panchayat, vide communication No.B1. 6595/13 dated 07.12.2013, which was served on the petitioner on 26.12.2013. Challenging that communication, the petitioner has filed a statutory appeal before the Panchayat Committee on 31.01.2014. Seeking disposal of that appeal within a time limit, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C)No.3832 of 2014, which is pending consideration before this Court. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue W.P.

(C)No.3832 of 2014, this writ petition may be closed.

9. The learned counsel for the additional 2^nd respondent would point out that Ext.P11 application dated 11.11.2013 made by the petitioner seeking licence to conduct poultry farm cannot be treated as one made under the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Livestock Farms) Rules, 2012, since it is not in the form prescribed under that Rules. Moreover, since the petitioner failed to apply for licence within 6 months from the date of commencement of that Rules, the provisions of Rule 8 of that Rules cannot be invoked. Therefore, the petitioner has to comply with the provisions under Rules 6 and 7 of that Rules for conducting poultry farm in the property in question.

10. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is closed recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking note of the legal contentions raised by the learned counsel for additional 2^nd respondent, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue W.P. (C)No.3832 of 2014 filed before this Court seeking disposal of the statutory appeal filed against communication No.B1.

6595/13 dated 07.12.2013 issued by the 1^st respondent Grama Panchayat, whereby the application for licence made by the petitioner to conduct poultry farm stands rejected.

11. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.R2(h) order dated 15.03.2012 of the Additional District Magistrate, Kannur ordering closure of his poultry farm, under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mor