Disposed

V.M.Thankachan v. Bharanicavu Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC7 Jul 2010WP(C)/9919/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding alleged well contamination by a bakery/restaurant, the Court sanctioned a settlement where the proprietor undertook pollution safeguards and water testing in exchange for a renewal of the business licence.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of based on a compromise for pollution safeguards, tank renovation, and water testing; subsequent action on licence renewal conditioned on compliance verification.

V.M.Thankachan Vs Bharanicavu Grama Panchayat — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 9919 of 2010(L)

PETITIONER:

V.M.THANKACHAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.VARGHEESE PAPPY, KOCHUKIZHAKATHIL HOUSE, BHARANICAVU SOUTH, PALLIKKAL.P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 690 503.

¶10

BY MR.V.PHILIP MATHEWS, ADVOCATE.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

BHARANICAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALLIKAL P.O., BHARANICAVU, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

JAYAKUMAR.S, PROPRIETOR JM BAKES AND RESTAURANT, PALA VILA BUILDING, BHARANICAVU-SOUTH, PALLIKKAL.P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 690 503.

¶17

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶18

RDO, CHENGANNUR.

¶19

BY MR.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R4. MR.M.R. SARIN, ADVOCATE FOR R4. MR.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, ADVOCATE, FOR R4.

¶20

MR.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC, POLL.C.BOARD FOR R2 & R3. MR.RASHEED C.NOORANAD, ADVOCATE, FOR R1. MS. K.R. DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R5 & R6.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C).19594/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 9919/2010

¶23

A P P E N D I X

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT. P1 : COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DTD. 25.2.10.

¶26

EXT. P1(a) : COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF R1 ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF EXT. P1 COMPLAINT. EXT. P2 : COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2 ON 27.02.2010. EXT. P2(a) : COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 27.2.2010 BEFORE R3. EXT. P3 : COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 8.3.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE R1 BY PETITIONER. EXT. P4 : COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM OFFICE OF R1 ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF EXT. P4 COMPLAINT.

¶27

3RD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT. R3(A) : COPY OF LETTER No.PCB/ALPA/CG-19/2010 DTD. 12.3.10. 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R4(a) : COPY OF LICENCE ISSUED BY R1 TO R4. EXT. R4(b) : COPY OF REPORT ISSUED BY GEA OF OFFICE OF KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. EXT. R4(c) : COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY R1.

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge.

smp

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(C) Nos.9919 & 19594 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2010.

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The main relief sought for in W.P.(C) No.9919/2010 is for a direction to the respondents 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to take prompt and effective steps to ensure that 4^th respondent or any others do not in any way contaminate or pollute the well of the petitioner or other drinking water sources in the area. The 4^th respondent in the said writ petition was conducting a bakery and restaurant in the name and style 'JM Bakes and Restaurant'. The said building is situated on the immediate eastern side of the residential building of the petitioner. The petitioner and his family are drawing water from the well situated in their compound for drinking purpose.

¶37

This Court passed an interim order dated 24.03.2010 in W.P.(C) No.9919/2010 directing the 3^rd respondent to conduct a local inspection and submit a report before this Court with regard to the allegation of contamination of petitioner's well due to the

¶38

W.P.(C) Nos.9919 & 19594/2010

¶39

¶40

waste coming out of the restaurant owned by the 4^th respondent. A report has been filed already and the report confirms the

¶41

allegations raised by the petitioner.

¶42

Thereafter, this Court passed an interim order on 14.06.2010 directing the respondents 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to see that the stop memo issued by the 1^st respondent Panchayath is enforced against the 4^th respondent and that the 4^th respondent does not continue running his bakery and restaurant, forthwith.

¶43

The 4^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.9919/2010 is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19594/2010 wherein he is seeking for a direction to renew the licence of the hotel and bakery. It appears that the disputes between the parties have been settled and the

¶44

terms of compromise have been produced along with I.A.No.8784/2010. Following are the terms and conditions of settlement:

¶45

“1. All the existing tanks including septic tanks existing in the property where the 4^th respondent is conducting business and septic tanks or other tanks near to the property which is being used by the 4^th respondent, his associates, staff or others will be cleaned and thereafter completely closed on or

¶46

W.P.(C) Nos.9919 & 19594/2010

¶47

¶48

before 29.07.2010.

¶49

New tanks with proper safeguards to prevent leakage or pollution that may result in contamination of the petitioner's well will be newly constructed by the 4^th respondent at his cost.

¶50

At present the owner of the property where 4^th respondent is conducting business - Johny Palavila - is dumping waste and allowing waste to flow into the tanks situated near the property of the petitioner which results in contamination of the petitioner's well, according to the fourth respondent. Adequate steps will be taken to prevent dumping waste or flow of waste to the tanks even if it is not caused by fourth respondent. Additional tanks will be constructed by fourth respondent for dumping of waste or flow of polluted materials, at his cost, away from the petitioner's house.

¶51

In addition to the above safeguards other necessary steps will be taken by the 4^th respondent so as to ensure that petitioner's well is not polluted in any manner. He will further ensure that no foul smell emanates from any of the tanks or any activity conducted by the 4^th respondent.

¶52

After the 4^th respondent fulfills the above conditions the petitioner will inform the Panchayat and other authorities that he has no objection in granting licence to the 4^th respondent.

¶53

The water from the petitioner's well will be tested

¶54

W.P.(C) Nos.9919 & 19594/2010

¶55

¶56

once in 3 months in an approved laboratory and if on such examination it is found that the water is polluted proper safeguards will be taken by the 4^th respondent to ensure that the pollution is removed. If such steps are not taken the petitioner will be free to approach the statutory or other authorities. Further, on filing of such petitions/applications fourth respondent will close down the business until the objections are cleared”.

¶57

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that these writ petitions can be disposed of in terms of the above conditions. Learned counsel for the 4^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.9919/2010 submitted that the 4^th respondent will comply with all the conditions provided in the terms of compromise and thereafter only he will seek for renewal of licence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the 4^th respondent completes the work related to the avoidance of pollution, he will also inform the Panchayath of his no objection based on which the Panchayath may be directed to take appropriate action.

¶58

Therefore, after completing various works to be done by the 4^th respondent, a compliance report will be filed before the

¶59

W.P.(C) Nos.9919 & 19594/2010

¶60

¶61

Panchayath who will verify the same by conducting an inspection and both parties will then file separate or a joint petition on the basis of which the Panchayath will take appropriate action for renewal of licence. The 4^th respondent will see that any complaint with regard to pollution in future will be attended to by him promptly.

¶62

These writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶63

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE

¶64

smp

V.M.Thankachan v. Bharanicavu Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M.Thankachan v. Bharanicavu Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V,Chandrasekharan Nair Vs Subbayya I.A.S

C.H.Achuthan Nair Vs K.S.R.T.C.

Premachandran Vs the District Collector,Kollam

Jose Vs State of Kerala

M.P. Basheer Vs Administrator, Union Territory

J.Devaki Vs the Corporation of Kollam and Others