High CourtsSingle Bench

Vidhay Kaur vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 17 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 UK CK 0131

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 592 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

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

7 paragraphs · 263 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

According to the petitioner, a Poultry Farm has been set up in her neighborhood, due to which, the entire locality is being polluted and there is every likelihood of spread of some epidemic. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ order or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to seize/lock the illegal poultry farming and stop the unhygienic atmosphere of the residence of the petitioner.

ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to shift the illegal poultry farm from near the residence of the petitioner and examine the license and permission for running the poultry farm."

2.

Learned Additional C.S.C. was asked to get instructions in the matter. Today, on instructions, he submits that, despite best efforts, instructions could not be received in the matter.

3.

Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that a Poultry Farm cannot be permitted inside a residential colony, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to concerned S.D.M., within two weeks from today. If such representation is made within stipulated period, the concerned S.D.M. shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation alongwith certified copy of this order.

4.

It goes without saying that, while taking any decision, respondent no. 4 shall also be heard.