The petitioner, owner of a hospital had approached this Court by filing WPC 28397/2014 alleging nuisance and pollution against a proposal of the first respondent Panchayat to start a market. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law and to finally dispose of the same. Ext.P5 judgment was passed on 29.10.2014. Thereafter, by Ext.P8 proceedings dated 6.11.2014 the appeal has been dismissed. It has been found in Ext.P8 that, the proposed market is being established, satisfying all the requirements for ensuring that the functioning thereof would not cause any nuisance or health hazards as apprehended by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Ext.P8 has been passed ignoring the directions contained in Ext.P5. Therefore, the petitioner seeks interference with the same. It is also pointed out that, inauguration of the market is scheduled to be held today, the 24th November, 2014. 2. Heard. As already noticed above, Ext.P5 was passed on 29.10.2014 whereas Ext.P8 is passed thereafter on 6.11.2014. It is true that, Ext.P8 does not refer to Ext.P5 judgment. However, Ext.P8 has considered the contentions of the petitioner and the objections raised by him. It has been held that, necessary precautions have been taken to ensure that the market does not cause any nuisance or pollution in the locality. I notice that the petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy against Ext.P8 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. It is for the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8 by invoking the said statutory remedy. Therefore, I do not consider it necessary to interfere with Ext.P8 at this point of time. The Tribunal has ample powers to order even closure if it is found that there is any nuisance or pollution from the functioning thereof. Therefore, it is not necessary to interfere with the inauguration of the market that is scheduled to be held today. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8 in exercise of the statutory remedy available to him.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge