High Court Kerala High Court

K.K.Residents Association vs Paravur Municipality on 22 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.K.Residents Association vs Paravur Municipality on 22 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36913 of 2009(S)


1. K.K.RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

3. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.A.JALEEL

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.A.SHAJI,SC,PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :22/02/2010

 O R D E R
                      P.R.RAMAN, Ag.C.J. &
                 C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

                    -------------------------------

                   W.P.(C) No.36913 of 2009
                    -------------------------------

             Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Raman, Ag.C.J.

This writ petition is filed seeking for a writ of

mandamus or other direction, directing the respondents to

remove all the sewage pipes directed towards the Kalathode

Canal and other canals in the first respondent, Municipality, and

to prevent flowing sewage, filth, waste, unwanted materials and

dirty water to the canal situated in Ward Nos.VI and VII of the

first respondent Municipality and ending in Paravur river, causing

health hazards and environmental problems. Further prayer was

for a direction to the second respondent not to put up slabs over

the canals without removing the sewage pipes leading to canals.

2. We heard both sides. First respondent has filed a

detailed counter affidavit. On 25.1.2010, this Court directed the

first respondent to file an affidavit as to the action taken in the

W.P.(C) No.36913 of 2009

2

matter. Third respondent was also directed to file a report.

Accordingly, a counter affidavit and report have been filed by

the first respondent and third respondent respectively, which

forms part of the record.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first

respondent, various steps taken pursuant to the filing of the writ

petition has been stated. It is stated that a meeting of the

representatives of trade and industry, as well as owners of hotels

and restaurants was convened so as to ensure that effective

steps are taken to treat the waste water before being let out to

public sewage canals. It is stated that the Municipality has

already closed all the outlets leading to the canals in question.

Further, the construction works referred to in the writ petition

are being carried out by the PWD, thus substantially redressing

the grievance of the petitioner.

4. The report of the third respondent, Environmental

Engineer, shows that there are about 27 establishments located

near the canal which discharge waste water to the Kalathodu

W.P.(C) No.36913 of 2009

3

Canal, including five major hospitals and hotels, shopping

complexes and other small establishments. But for want of

adequate treatment facility, Board had issued show cause notice

to all the hospitals.

5. In the above circumstances, all that is required to

be done in this writ petition is to direct the Pollution Control

Board to monitor the situation and take effective steps against

pollutants in accordance with law. Paravur Municipality shall also

keep a vigil on the situation and take remedial measures as and

when they notice about such activities of flowing filthy,

unwanted materials and dirty water into the canal. Petitioners

also can keep vigil on the situation and bring on notice to the

authorities, in case any such illegal activities are going on.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

association offers to do voluntary service for removing the waste

deposit in the canal. Tools and implements for removing the

said deposits shall be supplied by the Municipality and manual

labour will be provided by the petitioner. A suitable date may

W.P.(C) No.36913 of 2009

4

be fixed mutually agreed upon by the parties for carrying out

such operation, so that there may not be any further complaint

on the part of the petitioner in this regard.

The writ petition is closed with the above directions.

P.R.RAMAN,
Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE

nj.