The grievance of the petitioners is regarding the running of a piggery by the fifth respondent without valid license from the first respondent. The petitioners have approached the 2nd and 4th respondents though Exts.P2 and P1 respectively raising grievance against its functioning and thereupon Ext.P3 provisional order was passed by the second respondent requiring the fifth respondent to close down the piggery. In fact, prior to the passing of such an order, a report from the fourth respondent was called for and it was after obtaining such a report that Ext.P3 was passed. Thereafter, the second respondent conducted a hearing with notice to the petitioners as also the fifth respondent. The reply filed by the fifth respondent upon receipt of Ext.P3 was also considered and thereafter, Ext.P4 order confirming Ext.P3 order was passed. The fifth respondent was cautioned thereunder that in case of his failure to close down the piggery, steps would be taken to close down the same and in such eventuality, he would be liable for the consequences. The captioned writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by the failure on the part of the first respondent in taking steps for implementing Ext.P4 order.
2. On 5.2.2014, this Court admitted the writ petition and issued notice by speed post to the respondents. Despite the receipt of notice, the fifth respondent has not chosen to enter appearance and resist the case. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that as against Ext.P4, the fifth respondent has preferred an appeal before the committee of the first respondent and subsequently that appeal was rejected. If that be the position, the petitioners are perfectly justified in seeking for the implementation of Ext.P4. The non-feasance on the part of respondents 1 and 2 cannot be appreciated especially after rejecting the appeal preferred against Ext.P4. In such circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to take appropriate steps for implementing the directions in Ext.P4 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010