IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20991 of 2007(Y)
1. K.RAHMATHULLA, S/O.KUNHALANKUTTY HAJI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHERUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
... Respondent
2. THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER
4. PALAPATTA MUHAMMED,S/O.ALAVI,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/07/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 20991 of 2007
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JULY 15, 2008
JUDGMENT
The prayers sought in this writ petition are against the 4th
respondent. It is on the allegation that by running the ice
plant, the 4th respondent is polluting the well water in the
petitioner’s premises. On that basis petitioner seeks directions
commanding the 1st respondent to cancel the licence of the 4th
respondent and also to respondents 1 to 3 not to permit the 4th
respondent to run the ice plant causing pollution to the drinking
water in the nearby locality.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner’s well is situated at a distance of 45 metres from the
ice plant and that the well water has been analysed on different
occasions. Petitioner submits that Exts.P3 to P5 are the analysis
reports which indicate that the water in the well in his premises
is unfit for drinking purposes. According to him, it is therefore
evident that the 4th respondent unit is contaminating the well
water and therefore the unit is liable to be closed down for that
reason.
WP(C) 20991/07
2
3. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent.
According to the 2nd respondent, on receipt of complaint from the
residents of the locality, they had issued directions to the 4th
respondent to stop discharge of waste water to public drain and
also to apply and obtain consent of the Pollution Control Board.
It is stated that accordingly an application was made by the 4th
respondent on 17.7.2006. Thereafter, complaints were again
received and the well water was analysed which showed that the
chlorine content was slightly in excess of the limits.
4. It is stated that at that stage the 4th respondent had
produced Ext.R2(1), an agreement entered into by the 4th
respondent with the earlier owner of the petitioner’s property
and also another neighbouring resident. It is stated that in
terms of the said agreement, petitioner had agreed to provide a
bore well to the house of one Mr.Veeran Kutty and pipe
connection to the residential premises which is occupied by the
petitioner. According to the Pollution Control Board,
considering all these, consent to operate was issued on certain
conditions as envisaged in Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974. The Pollution Control Board again submits
WP(C) 20991/07
3
that even subsequent to the grant of consent, inspections were
conducted on 2.4.2007 and 25.7.2007 and that the 4th
respondent is operating the unit in terms of the conditions of the
consent that has been granted.
5. Despite the assertions made by the Pollution Control
Board in its statement and the 4th respondent in his counter
affidavit, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
waste water is being discharged from the 4th respondent’s
premises into the public drain and also into the neighbouring
properties leading contamination of the well water. It is stated
that as a result of this, his well water is saline and is unfit for
potable purposes.
6. If the 4th respondent is complying with the conditions of
the consent to operate, granted by the Pollution Control Board,
the petitioner can have no complaint. Any way, it is a matter for
the Pollution Control Board to ensure that the 4th respondent is
operating his industrial unit strictly in terms of the consent to
operate granted by them.
7. In view of the complaint raised by the petitioner, I direct
that the Pollution Control Board shall conduct periodical
WP(C) 20991/07
4
inspection of the premises of the 4th respondent and ensure
compliance of the conditions of consent to operate. It is
directed that in case violation of the consent is found, the
Pollution Control Board shall take appropriate action to remedy
the situation.
With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
mt/-