IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14969 of 2010(U)
1. SEBASTIAN JOHN, AGED 57 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. THE CHAIRMAN,
5. KUNJUMON, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
6. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMANATHAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :01/06/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C). No.14969/2010-U
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed seeking for various reliefs
including a direction to the first and second respondents
to take immediate measures to close down the dumping of
waste, its collection and environment pollution caused by
the fifth respondent in the petitioner’s property. There
is a further relief sought by way of a direction to the
fifth respondent to remove the already collected waste in
the petitioner’s property and to adequately compensate the
petitioner for the damages done to his property.
2. It is a case where the petitioner has executed
Ext.P1 agreement with the fifth respondent for using his
property on payment of Rs.10,000/- as monthly rent for
different purposes including rearing of buffaloes as well
as for manufacture of organic manure from vegetable waste
for which the fifth respondent is allowed to use certain
portions of properties the extent of which is mentioned in
condition No.3 of Ext.P1. Certain other stipulations have
also been made in Ext.P1.
3. What is alleged in the writ petition is that the
fifth respondent, without obtaining any licence, started to
dump all kinds of waste collected from the Cherthala
W.P.(C). No.14969/2010
-:2:-
Municipality including waste materials from hospitals,
dangerous chemicals etc. into the property. Certain
photographs have been produced in support of the said plea.
The petitioner has also produced along with the writ
petition, Exts.P2 and P3 which are representations said to
have been submitted by the Parent-Teacher Association of
the Government Polytechnic College, Cherthala and the
Principal, Government Polytechnic College, Cherthala
respectively in this regard alleging public nuisance and
pollution. In support of the plea that the people of the
locality have been complaining the matter to the petitioner
Ext.P4 representation has been produced.
4. The petitioner is permanently residing in New
Delhi and on coming to know about the activities of the
fifth respondent, he has filed this writ petition seeking
various reliefs.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality
and the learned counsel for the fifth respondent.
6. When the matter came up for hearing on 24/05/2010,
the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted
that speedy steps are being taken for finding out a
permanent solution with regard to dumping of waste and
appropriate action will be taken within one week. It was
W.P.(C). No.14969/2010
-:3:-
also submitted that the Municipality will have to find out
suitable places for dumping of waste. This submission was
made on realising that the arrangement made between the
petitioner and the fifth respondent cannot be used for
dumping the entire waste materials generated within the
Municipality limits through the fifth respondent in the
property in question. The fifth respondent has filed a
counter affidavit in the matter disputing the contentions
raised by the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the Municipality submitted
that going by the terms of Ext.P1, the petitioner has
allowed the fifth respondent to collect vegetable waste for
converting it as organic manure. It is submitted that to
that extent, the arrangement between the petitioner and the
fifth respondent can be continued. But with regard to the
dumping of other types of waste materials, the fifth
respondent will have to see that the same will not be
dumped into the petitioner’s property.
8. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the fifth respondent cannot bring any
materials to the property, in the light of the conditions
specified in Ext.P1 it can be seen that the petitioner has
permitted the fifth respondent to bring vegetable waste for
the purpose of manufacturing organic manure. Therefore,
W.P.(C). No.14969/2010
-:4:-
the stand taken by the petitioner that the fifth respondent
cannot bring such type of waste is not supportable.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that under the cover of the agreement and misusing the
terms of the agreement, the entire waste generated within
the limits of the Municipality cannot be brought in by the
fifth respondent on the basis of any arrangement made by
him with the Municipality. That will be beyond the scope
of the agreement.
10. There is dispute between the parties with regard
to the question whether the entire property is now utilised
for dumping waste. That is a matter which can be enquired
into by a competent officer of the fourth respondent,
namely, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, who will
depute a competent Officer to conduct an inspection of the
entire property including the quantity of the waste
collected there and the items which have been collected and
prepare a report. He should also find out whether any
pollution is created by the dumping of waste in the
property. A copy of the report will be furnished to the
petitioner, the Municipality as well as the fifth
respondent after conducting the inspection within a period
of one week.
W.P.(C). No.14969/2010
-:5:-
11. The Municipality will see that any extra items of
waste not covered by the terms of Ext.P1 agreement which
are dumped into the property are removed to any convenient
site to be found out by them through the fifth respondent
himself or by other means. The same will also be done
within ten days from the date of submission of the report
by the Officer of the fourth respondent.
12. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any other
actions of the fifth respondent, namely, alleged violation
of the terms of the agreement etc., he can approach an
appropriate forum in the matter.
With the above directions, the writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
ms