SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
MURALEEDHARAN NAIR K.R. – Appellant
Versus
THE ERUMELY GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
WP(C) NO.21399 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN, SRI.JOHNSON K.KURIEN
For the Respondents: SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT.P.V.PARVATHY, SMT.REENA THOMAS, SMT.NIGI GEORGE, SMT.NIMA JACOB, GP, SMT.CHITHRA CHANDRASEKHARAN, SC, SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, PCB

Statutory permissions are essential for conducting certain activities, ensuring public health and compliance with local regulations.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks to restrain the 5th respondent from running a poultry farm without necessary permissions, which is alleged to be unhygienic (Section 255 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994). The Court directs the 2nd respondent to inspect and take action if no license is obtained. Resultantly, appropriate action must be considered for closure if the premises are not compliant.

Table of Content
1. no activity may be conducted without proper licenses to ensure hygiene and compliance. (Para 1 , 2)
2. the court orders an inspection and potential closure of non-compliant businesses. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that the 5th respondent does not conduct the poultry farm mentioned in Ext.P5 without obtaining license from respondents

1, 2 and 4.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the 5th respondent is conducting a poultry farm near to the residence of the petitioner without obtaining the statutory permissions from respondents 1 and 4 and that the farm is being conducted in an unhygienic manner, making it difficult for the petitioner to live there. Ext.P5 is the notice issued by the 2nd respondent stating that the 5th respondent is running the poultry farm without obtaining licence from the local authority and the 5th respondent is directed to file objection, if any, in the matter before initiating proceedings against him under Section 255 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994.

3. Taking into account the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following directions:

(i) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to conduct an inspection and to see whether the 5th respondent is running the poultry farm after obtaining necessary licence and consent from the local authorities, including the 2nd respondent and the same is conducted in a hygienic manner.

(ii) If the same is running without obtaining valid licence and consent and is unhygienic, appropriate action shall be taken by the 2nd respondent to close down the poultry farm.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top