MATHEW THOMAS PANICKER Vs. MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice by which the Municipality has proposed auction of meat stalls and the auction is scheduled to take place tomorrow. From Ext.P1 notice itself, it is evident that the notice was published as early as on 12/1/2010 and at this last minute, the writ petition is filed seeking to interdict the Municipality from going ahead with the auction.

(2.) Apart from the point of delay in approaching this Court, on merits also, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Municipality is going ahead with the auction without establishing a slaughter house of its own as directed by this Court in Mathew v. Valakom Grama Panchayat,2009 3 KerLT 572. However, a reading of Ext.P1, the auction notice itself show that the Municipality has made sufficient safeguards, in as much as it is provided that until the slaughter house of the Municipality gets functioned, the successful bidder should make use of the slaughter house of the neighbouring Kayamkulam Municipality. For this reason, I am not persuaded to think that there is any violation of the directions of this Court warranting interference with Ext.P1 at this last minute.

(3.) At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Municipality has been dodging the issue of construction of slaughter house, which is countered by the standing counsel for the Municipality by pointing out that they have already initiated action and are awaiting consent of the Pollution Control Board to complete the remaining work. Now that the Municipality has already initiated action, it is directed that the Municipality shall ensure that the slaughter house is completed and is functional, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from today.