The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 application for opening a slaughter house in the property having an extent of 4.6 Ares comprised in Block No.36, Re-survey No.348/1-1-1-1 and 348/1-1 of Pampady Village is still remaining unconsidered before the second respondent. Obviously, the said application was filed on 13.8.2012. The contention of the petitioner is that since no order was passed thereon, claiming the benefit of deeming provision, he commenced slaughter house. Thereupon, respondents 2 and 3 issued a stop memo requiring the petitioner to stop the illegal activities of slaughtering.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. After arguing for some sometime, taking into account the fact that the application in question was filed in 2012 and thereafter, no application was filed by the petitioner for grant of license, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file fresh application for license, before the second respondent. I am of the view that no permission is required for making such an application and it will be open to the petitioner to move an application in appropriate forum before the second respondent for grant of permit. In case the petitioner files such an application, it is only appropriate for the respondents to consider the same in accordance with law. If stop memo has been already issued, the respondents shall ensure that slaughtering house is not functioning without valid permit.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT September, 2010