O RD E R ********* This Contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondent for the alleged disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.5286 of 2016 order dated 20.11.2017.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2.In the said order, this Court has given the following direction:
“9.... with o ut g oi n g int o th e m e rit s o f th e p e titi o n e r' s cl ai m , dir e ct s th e f o urth r e s p o n d e n t t o c o n si d e r th e a p pli c ati o n o f th e p e titi o n e r, d at e d 02.03.2016 , s e e ki n g lic e n c e t o r u n pi g g e r y u nit, a n d p a s s a p p r o pri at e o r d e r s o n it s o w n m e rit a n d in a c c o r d a n c e with la w a ft e r g e ttin g a n n u n d e rt a ki n g fr o m th e p e titi o n e r t o th e e ff e c t th at h e will n o t c a u s e a n y h e alth h a z a r d o v e r th e a r e a a n d al s o n ot in v ol v e in s l a u g ht erin g o f pi g s and al s o a ft e r a ff or di n g d u e o p p o rtu nity o f h e a rin g t o th e p e titi o n e r a s w e ll a s a n y o f th e int e r e s t p arti e s , within a p e ri o d o f s i x w e e k s fr o m th e d at e o f r e c ei pt o f a c o p y o f thi s o r d e r.”
3.According to the petitioner, since the said order has not been complied with, he has filed this Contempt Petition.
4.Today, when the Contempt Petition came up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that as per the orders of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5286 of 2016, a notice dated 20.11.2017 was issued to the petitioner directing him to remove the piggerry unit.
5.It could be seen that the petitioner's representation was considered and the respondent has stated that inspite of sending repeated notices, the petitioner has not removed the said piggery unit and the said unit is also causng health hazard to the general public. They have also receiving complaints from the general public and hence, http://www.judis.nic.in they denied for issuance of lincence and accordingly, rejected the same. They have also 3 directed the petitioner to remove the said piggerry unit within one week. There is a foot note in the proceedings, dated 27.12.2017 by the pipe line operator, who was sent to serve the same on the petitioner that 'as per the orders of the Executive Officer, when he went to serve the said proceedings to the petitioner, as the petitioner refused to receive the same, he affixed the same on the door', for which, the petitioner submits that no such notice was served to him. According to the petitioner, no opportunityi was given to him while passing the said order.
6.In view of the fact that there is an order has been passed, as per the orders of this Court, there is no question of contempt arise and hence, no further adjudication is required in this Contempt Proceedings. Accordingly, this Contempt petition closed.
0 6.1 2.2 0 1 8 Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rj2 http://www.judis.nic.in 4 V. B H AVA NI S U B B A ROYA N , J .
rj2 To Shenbagapandian, Executive Officer, Valvachagoshtam Town Panchayat, Valvachagoshtam, Kattathurai Post, Kanyakumari District.
C O N T. P (MD) N o. 1 8 7 3 o f 2 0 1 8 in W. P.(MD) N o. 5 2 8 6 o f 2 0 1 6 0 6.1 2.2 0 1 8 http://www.judis.nic.in