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/-