LIJESH M.P. Vs. PALLIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.40753/2016 is aggrieved with a peeling shed conducted by the 6th respondent; which is alleged to be the cause of immeasurable nuisance and untold hardship to the residents of the locality. Respondent Nos.7 to 11 are also represented through Counsel who support the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the 6th respondent is carrying on the peeling shed without D&O licence from the Panchayat and also without following the fundamental measures to mitigate the pollution, as would necessarily emanate from such an industry.

(2.) W.P.(C)No.25285 of 2017 is filed by the 6th respondent and is coming up for admission. However the learned Counsel for the 6th respondent submits that the entire facts have been stated in the counter affidavit. In such circumstances, the disposal of W.P.(C)No.25285/2017 would be in accordance with that of W.P.(C)No.40753/2016. The parties and documents are referred to from W.P.(C) No.40753/2016.

(3.) The learned counsel for the 6th respondent points out that in the particular area there are a number of peeling sheds carried on; that too without licence. This even otherwise is the cause of the all pervading foul smell in the locality, which sustains itself on marine wealth. It is argued that any activity specified in Schedule-I of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of License to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 has to have a licence only if, under Rule 2 there is a publication made by the Panchayat. The entire properties as seen from Ext.R6(a) sketch belonged to the petitioner's father in which earlier a peeling shed existed right from 1967 onwards. There was no objection from any quarters and the petitioner purchased the property with the peeling shed from a subsequent assignee. The problems arose only when the petitioner's family constructed a new residential building in his property.