SHAJI PHILIP Vs. PALIKKATHODA GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether a person who runs a piggery for the purpose of sale of pigs is liable to take out licence from the Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (for short D & O Rules ) or whether it is sufficient if he takes a licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Pigs and Dogs) Rules, 1998 (for short Pigs and Dogs Rules ).

(2.) The petitioner started a pig farm in the year 2003 at Pallikkathodu, within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent-Panchayat. Since, according to the petitioner, no licence was required for running a piggery at that time, no licence was taken. However, on a complaint from some persons, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued a notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to close down the piggery, even though the petitioner is stated to have complied with all the conditions prescribed by the Medical Officer, Paika, the District Medical Officer, Kottayam and Pollution Control Board. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Panchayat Committee, which was rejected. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. That revision was allowed and the order of the Panchayat was set aside. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to submit an application for licence, if the Panchayat passes a resolution making it obligatory to take out a licence for running a piggery. Thereafter, the 1st respondent Panchayat passed a resolution imposing licence for piggery under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Pigs and Dogs) Rules, 1998, to which the petitioner submitted an application for licence. Petitioner s application for licence was rejected by the Panchayat. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Secretary refusing licence to the petitioner. The Panchayat committee set aside the order of the Secretary and directed the Secretary to pass fresh orders. Again, the Secretary rejected the application for licence submitted by the petitioner.

(3.) Pursuant to the direction from this Court, the Panchayat committee considered the appeal filed by the petitioner but rejected the appeal and directed closure of the piggery. That order was challenged in revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal by Ext. P.13 order set aside the order of the Panchayat committee, but directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application for licence under the D & O Rules. That order to the extent it directs the petitioner to submit an application for licence under the D & O Rules is under challenge before me.