THOMAS GEORGE Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner claims to be the Convenor of Swasraya Sahakarana Sangam at Maruthoor. Ext.Pl is the Byelaw. Ext.P2 is the Certificate issued by the Kalloorkkad Farmers Co-operative Bank. According to the petitioner, the property of the petitioner's mother was taken on lease for starting a Pig Farm. It is stated that an application was made for licence/consent to the local authority and to the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. It is stated that the Officers of the Pollution Control Board inspected the Pig Farm and as per their direction, heavy investments were made for constructing sceptic tank, gas plant etc. Ext.P3 is the plan approved by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. By letter dated 14-10-2004, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board issued consent also. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 10 made complaints before the first respondent to close down the pig farm. The father of the petitioner was made the counter petitioner. A conditional order was passed (Ext.P5). According to the petitioner, he filed objection that the Pig Farm is run by the Swasraya Sahakarana Sangam. It is without issuing notice to the petitioner, the Kalloorkkadu Farmers' Cooperative Bank, etc. that the first respondent by Ext.P6 order made the conditional order absolute. Petitioner made a petition before the first respondent to recall Ext.P6 order (Ext.P7). It is stated that his father who was the counter petitioner in Ext.P6 filed Crl.R.P. No. 71/04, challenging Ext.P6, before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and the same was dismissed. The contention of the petitioner is that under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. the conditional order shall be one directing the person who is doing the trade committing nuisance, etc. In this case, the conditional orders (Exts.P5 and P6) were issued against the petitioner's father and the said orders are not binding on the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 for recalling Ext.P6, and that the respondent is duty bound to consider the same. It is stated that the petitioner has obtained consent from the Pollution Control Board and satisfied all conditions. Reliance is placed on Section 141 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that irreparable injury will be caused to the petitioner. The prayers in the Writ Petition are as follows:

(2.) A Counter Affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 10. It is, inter alia, contended that the petitioner, his father, mother and other family members are operating an unauthorised and illegal pig farm. The pit farm is the joint venture of the petitioner and his family members. It is located in a strictly residential area where they reside. It is stated that there is no licence from the Panchayat, Health Authority or the Pollution Control Board. Air and water are highly polluted. Ext.Pl is alleged to be manipulated.

(3.) A Reply Affidavit has been filed denying the allegation in the Counter Affidavit. It is stated that the Swasraya Sahakarana Sangam was formed as per the scheme of Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. It is further stated that the petitioner had made an application for licence to the Kalloorkkad Panchayat. However, no orders were communicated to the petitioner. When Ext.Rl0(a) notice was issued to the father of the petitioner, the petitioner contacted the Panchayat Authorities and reminded about the pendency of the application for licence. It is stated that consequently the Panchayat stopped all proceedings based on Ext.Rl0(a). It is stated that since no orders were communicated on the application for licence as the same was misplaced, the petitioner has made another application on 29-10-2004 for licence to the Panchayat (Ext.P9). The Panchayat has not so far communicated orders on Ext.P9. It is stated that respondents 4 to 7 are residing away from the farm. Petitioner reiterates that the proceedings of the first respondent are not binding on him. He relied on Sub-section (3) of Section 236 in this regard. It is extracted as follows: