GOPINATHAN E N Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decent burial whether a right, fundamental or not, an attempt to establish a burial or a burning ground or a crematorium quite frequently leads to confrontation, at different levels unmindful of the God's honest truth that it is the last destination for all. The reason for the resistance against the setting up of a crematorium and its tenability beckon a befitting, deeper consideration in this case in view of the involvement of certain significant questions. The issues herein originated from the decision and the follow up steps taken for setting up a crematorium in Ward No. 10 by the third respondent-Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat. Whether publication of the application for issuance of licence for a burial or burning ground, including a crematorium, and also a notice inviting objections, complaints or suggestions in a daily newspaper in the regional language of the locality in question having wide circulation is mandatory and if its answer is in the affirmative, then what exactly is the stage at which such publication is to be effected These and other allied questions posed for consideration in the following factual matrix:

(2.) Manifold contentions have been raised by the petitioner to challenge Exts. P7, P10 and P15 orders. Indubitably, prayer Nos. (a) and (b) have become infructuous after the issuance of Ext. P15 order. Now, I will consider the tenability of the challenge against Exts. P7, P10 and P15. Evidently, Ext. P7 order was taken up in appeal by the petitioner through Ext. P8 and it culminated in Ext. P10 order. As per Ext. P10, the first respondent issued a direction to the second respondent to consider the issue afresh and pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the 3rd respondent in accordance with the provisions under Rule 6 of the Rules and it was thereafter that the second respondent passed Ext. P15 order under Rule 6(8)(a) of the Rules. There is absolutely no need for mounting any challenge against Ext. P7 order after Ext. P10 order and the consequential Ext. P15 order as Ext. P7 order lost its existence in the circumstances. The scope of consideration is thus confined to the challenge against Exts. P10 and P15. Though the petitioner assails the said orders on the ground of being tainted with mala fides it behoves if that ground is considered a little later, that too, in case of necessity after considering the challenge mounted against them based on alleged violation of Rules 6(6) and 6(7) of the Rules.

(3.) One of the grounds of specific attack is that the District Medical Officer had neither conducted any enquiry nor made any recommendation as enjoined under Rule 6(6) of the Rules. The impugned order itself speaks of the recommendation of the District Medical Officer on the application received from respondents 3 and 4 for the aforesaid purpose. In view of the position obtained from the records that the District Medical Officer had forwarded the application submitted by respondents 3 and 4 along with his recommendations after conducting an enquiry the contention of the petitioner based on Rule 6(6) has to fail.