AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 188 wordsMurali Purushothaman, J
The petitioner is challenging Exhibit P7 notice issued by the second respondent Panchayath to close down the piggery run by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, notice is issued not under the relevant rules and hence the same is without jurisdiction. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is running the piggery without necessary licence and complaints have been received from the residents against the running of the piggery and that Exhibit P7 is only a showcause notice.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
If the petitioner is still running the piggery and if the Panchayath is satisfied that the petitioner is running the piggery without necessary licence or in violation of any statutory provisions, the Panchayath is free to initiate necessary and appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. Since this liberty has been granted to the Panchayath, Exhibit P7 need not be enforced.
Needless to say the Panchayath shall issue notice before initiating any coercive action against the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.