Boban A.V. Alappattu House vs The Mathala Grama Panchayath on 14 July, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15461 of 2005(N)


1. BOBAN A.V. ALAPPATTU HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. M.S.SALIM, MATHILAKATHU VEETTIL,
3. M.S.ASHRAF, MATHILAKATHU VEETTIL,

                        Vs



1. THE MATHALA GRAMA  PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR,

3. THE ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :14/07/2009

 O R D E R
                        C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                   ....................................................................
                             W.P.(C) No.15461 of 2005
                   ....................................................................
                      Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009.

                                          JUDGMENT

Petitioners have raised objection against public comfort station

proposed by the first respondent. Grievance of the petitioners is that the

public comfort station will cause pollution to the drinking water source

which is a well nearby. However, counsel appearing for the third

respondent produced copy of the report of the Environmental Engineer

namely Ext.R3(a) wherein he has suggested measures to prevent pollution

i.e. likely to be caused by the comfort station. On going through the report,

I feel sufficient safeguards are maintained by him. Comfort station has to

be located somewhere and if it causes pollution, remedy is to acquire the

nearby land and give compensation to the owners. W.P. is accordingly

disposed of leaving freedom to the Panchayat to proceed with construction

of comfort station. However, petitioners are free to be present at the

construction site or to be represented by any technical person to ensure that

construction is done in accordance with the standards prescribed by the

2

third respondent. Similarly if comfort station is not maintained in the way

suggested by the Environmental Engineer, petitioners can proceed against

the Panchayat for compensation or other remedy.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
pms