PHILOMINA RODRIGUS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. I.A. No. 1 of 2013 filed for production of additional documents is allowed and the documents are perused. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 21-11-2011 (Annexure-A), passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, Kundapur. By the impugned order, the Executive Officer has affirmed the unanimous resolution dated 10-2-2009 of Uppunda Grama Panchayat, to prohibit the petitioner from continuing Pig Farming in Janata Colony for the reason that it emits foul smell in the locality which is a residential one and would also affect the health of the children in the Anganavadi, which is in the same locality.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition, referred to Section 67 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. In my opinion, the said section has no relevance to determine the controversy as admittedly, the Uppunda Grama Panchayat has not continued the licence dated 19-6-2008 (Annexure-D) granted to the petitioner for running the Pig Farm.

(3.) Having regard to the fact that Pig Farming is carried on in a residential locality of Uppunda Grama Panchayat and as it emits foul smell affecting the health of the children in the Anganavadi which is in the same locality, I decline to interfere with the impugned order. In any view of the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.