High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-09-01Writ petition dismissed; no costs; remand for p...

P. V. Mohammed Kutty v. Munderi Grama Panchayat, and Secretary, Munderi Grama Panchayat, Kannur District, and Addl. Respondents

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 15824 of 2016 (C)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-09-01
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The petitioner is advised to submit a proper licence application to the Panchayat, which must be considered after calling for objections, in accordance with the Rules. The court clarifies that the petitioner cannot operate a slaughter house without a licence.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; no costs; remand for proper licence application to be processed by Panchayat with compliance of Rules

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

P. V. Mohammed Kutty
SHEFEERA MANZIL

Respondents

Munderi Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary
Secretary, Munderi Grama Panchayat
Naseer C.K.
Rafeeq M.
Faisal Z.M.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. M. Pareeth

Counsels for Respondents

• P. U. Shailajan
• M. Suresh Kumar
• K. Abdul Jawad
• R. Anoop
• M. K. Prasanth Kumar

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, P. V. Mohammed Kutty (represented by counsel) challenges the Panchayat’s rejection of his application for a slaughter house licence and seeks a deemed licence under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, alleging long-standing operation of a slaughter house in RS No.128/5, Kanhirode village, Ward 12 of Munderi Grama Panchayat. A notice Ext. P1 directed the petitioner to stop slaughtering within seven days, and the petitioner submitted Ext. P2, which was not in the form prescribed by the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules, 1996. Subsequently Ext. P4 was filed under the Rules, but for 30 days there was no response, prompting the petitioner to rely on a deemed licence under Section 236(3). The respondents contended that the application was not complete and not in conformity with the Rules of 1996 (Rule 32), and that the Secretary cannot decide such an application that should be decided by the Panchayat after calling for objections. The court noted that the applicant’s long-standing conduct does not cure procedural deficiencies and that the Rules impose strict compliance, including deposits for publications and proximity restrictions (Rule 5). The court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, but allowed the petitioner to approach the Panchayat with a proper application for a licence, clarifying that no slaughter house operation is permitted without a licence.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Section 236(3)Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules, 1996Rule 32(1)Rule 32(2)Rule 32(3)Rule 32(4)Rule 32(5)Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996Prohibition/Distance norms from dwellings under Rule 5

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that a slaughter house has been operated for around 50 years at the same site in Ward 12, and that Ext. P1’s notice to close within seven days, together with the reliance on Section 236(3) for a deemed licence, should be countenanced. The petition argues that the application (Ext. P4) should be treated as an existing slaughter house licence since the practice predates the 1996 Rules; it asserts that the Rules of 1996 require only procedural compliance and that non-completion cannot bar a deemed licence given the long-standing operation. The petitioner also notes there was inaction for 30 days and prays for deemed licence and to be permitted to continue operations until a proper licence is granted.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that the application (Ext. P4) is not a complete or proper application under Rule 32 of the Slaughter Houses Rules, 1996, and therefore cannot be treated as a request for a deemed licence. They emphasize that a deposit for publication, plan and building sketch, water supply details, and objections from the public are mandatory and must be handled by the Panchayat, not the Secretary. They also point to Rule 5’s prohibition on slaughter houses within 90 meters of dwellings and argue that the Secretary’s role is limited to processing but not determining the application without Panchayat involvement and public objection.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sudhakaran v. Pallichal Grama Panchayat	2016(2) KLT 175	Mentioned Only	Cited as a reference by the petitioner; the present judgement does not rely on or distinguish its doctrine, but merely notes the decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against P. V. Mohammed Kutty v. Munderi Grama Panchayat, and Secretary, Munderi Grama Panchayat, Kannur District, and Addl. Respondents and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/10TH BHADRA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 15824 of 2016 (C) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **P.V.MOHAMMED KUTTY S/O.AHAMMED, SHEFEERA MANZIL, P.O.MOWANCHERY, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 613.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. MUNDERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT EACHUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 591. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2. SECRETARY, MUNDERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EACHUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 591.** ## **ADDL.RESPONDENTS*** **R3. NASEER C.K, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O MAMMU HAJI, FIRDOUSE, NEAR OLD POST OFFICE MOWANCHERRY PO, KANNUR - 670 613** **R4. RAFEEK M, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O ASSAINAR, DAR-U-SALAM, NEAR OLD POST OFFICE MOWANCHERRY PO, KANNUR - 670 613 R5. FAISAL Z.M, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O P.KUNHIMUHAMMED, ZEENATH MANZIL, NEAR OLD POST OFFICE MOWANCHERRY PO, KANNUR - 670 591** **(* ADDL. RESPONDENTS ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.01.09.16 IN I.A NO.10376/16)** **R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SURESH KUMAR R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.ANOOP R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.PRASANTH KUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 15824 of 2016 (C)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.19.9.15 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.5.10.15 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.16.3.16 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.23.3.16 FOR LICENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT DTD.23.3.16 EXHIBITS PRODUCED IN I.A NO.10376/2016** **EXT.P1 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DTD.29.12.15 SEEKING POLICE ASSISTANCE. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION, ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER HEREIN BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS ON 26.3.16** **EXT.P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.1.7.15 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.14.9.15 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH EXT.P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.13.7.15 BY MUNDERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT SHOWING THE NUISANCE OF SLAUGHTER HOUSE. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.3.6.16 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE BROTHER OF 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBITS PRODUCED IN I.A NO.12966/16 EXT.P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.6.5.16 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY //** **P.A TO JUDGE** **SB** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** ## **===================== W.P.(C) No.15824 of 2016 - C ====================== Dated this the 01[st] day of September, 2016** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved with the rejection, of the applicationof the petitioner, by the Panchayath at Annexure R1 (a), which is argued to be of no consequence, for reason of the decision of a Division Bench reported in **Sudhakaran** v. . **Pallichal Grama Panchayat [2016(2) KLT 175]** 2. The petitioner contends that a slaughter house had been carried on in R.S.No.128/5 of Kanhirode village, in Ward No.12 of the 1[st] respondent Panchayat for the last 50 years and that the petitioner was issued with a notice at Ext.P1, directing stoppage of the slaughter house and threatening prosecution, if the slaughter house is not closed down within **2** W.P.(C) No.15824 of 2016 - C seven days. The petitioner then made an application at Ext.P2, which was not in the form as prescribed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules, 1996 (for brevity 'the Rules, 1996). Hence the petitioner applied as per Ext.P4 under the Rules of 1996, which was not responded to for 30 days and in such circumstance, the petitioner claims a deemed licence under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, relying on the aforecited decision. 3. The learned Counsel for the party respondents submits that there can be no application of the deeming provision, since the application filed by the petitioner was not complete and was not in accordance with the Rules of 1996. Specifically Rule 32 of the Rules of 1996 is pointed out, where an application has to be made for an existing slaughter house or a new slaughter house in the manner provided therein. The petitioner contends that the petitioner's slaughter house has **3** W.P.(C) No.15824 of 2016 - C been existing for long years. Ext.P4 application indicates that the application is filed for an existing slaughter house, but it is an admitted fact that the petitioner does not have a licence for the slaughter house, which is said to have been carried on even prior to the coming into force of the Rules of 1996. If the petitioner wanted to apply for an existing slaughter house, the same should have been applied immediately after the Rules of 1996 was implemented. In such circumstance the petitioner's application is one to open a new slaughter house, wherein a deposit has to be made at the Panchayat office to cover the expenses of publication of notification in a local news paper. It is specifically contained in Rule 32(2) of the Slaughter House Rules that no application for opening a new slaughter house without such deposit will be considered. The purpose for such notification is also explained in sub-rule (3), which is the invitation of objections, if any, from the general public against **4** W.P.(C) No.15824 of 2016 - C the establishment of a private slaughter house; which is a source of constant and hazardous pollution. 4. In this context, the party respondents specifically referred to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, wherein there is a clear prohibition from establishing a slaughter house, within 90 metres of any dwelling house. The party respondents are said to be residing within 20 metres of the slaughter house to be established. Going back to Rule 32(4) of the Rules of 1996 it also requires a plan and sketch of the building to be constructed and particulars of the water supply available, to be specified in the application and sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 provides that the Secretary has to submit to the Panchayat Committee for decision on the application received as per sub-rule (1); along with any objection received as per 32(2), plan and sketch of the building received as per Rule 32(4) of the Rules of 1996 with a report of equity made thereon. **5** W.P.(C) No.15824 of 2016 - C 5. In such circumstance, the application itself has to be considered by the Panchayat Committee and not by the Secretary. The application at Ext.P4 not being a complete application, the Secretary rightly did not place the application before the Panchayat. The defects noticed were informed to the petitioner as per Annexure R1(a). The petitioner could very well cure the defects and submit a proper application before the Panchayat, which has to be considered by the Panchayat after calling for objections. The assertion of the petitioner that the petitioner had been carrying on a slaughter house, would not make an application filed by the petitioner to be of an existing slaughter house; especially since he had no license for any of the previous years after the Rules of 1996 came into force. An incomplete application, which is not filed in accordance with the Rules of 1996, cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioner to claim a deemed licence. In such **6** W.P.(C) No.15824 of 2016 - C circumstance, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same would stand dismissed, however leaving remedy to the petitioner to approach the Panchayat with a proper application for licence. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to carry on any slaughter house without a licence and a license application ought to be considered only after calling for objections as prescribed in the Rules and especially from the party respondents here. The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs. **Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** SB/01/09/2016 // true copy // P.A to Judge.