Disposed

Suresh George v. Thrikkakara Municipality

Kerala HC7 Oct 2016WP(C)/10109/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that selling water extracted from a pond for drinking without a permit under the Kerala Ground Water Act, 2002 is illegal. It directed the stoppage of such extraction immediately and mandated the Ground Water Authority, not the District Officer, to examine the permit application within three months. The District Officer was to inspect the property and submit a report to the Authorit

What did the court decide?

The sale of water extracted from the pond without a permit was stopped forthwith; compliance with the Act will be ensured by the 3rd respondent; the Ground Water Authority must consider the permit app

Suresh George Vs Thrikkakara Municipality — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10109 of 2016 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SURESH GEORGE, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.D.GEORGE, PANAKKALODIYIL HOUSE, THENGODU P.O., KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 30.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KAKKANAD P.O., COCHIN - 682 030. 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, SITHARAM MILL LANE, POOMKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR - 680 002. 3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. Addl. 4. SHIJAN, AGED 35 S/O.KOCHU MOHAMMED, RESIDING AT MURIYANKARA HOUSE, KAKKANAD, THENGODE P.O., ERNAKULAM. ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.05.2016 IN I.A. NO.4367/2016 RADDL.R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN R2&R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 BY SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C).No. 10109 of 2016 (K)

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶15

P1: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICF DATED 16.2.2016.

¶16

P2: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.2.2016.

¶17

P3: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶18

P4: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12.2.2016.

¶19

P5: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.3.2016.

¶20

P6: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 9.3.2016.

¶21

P7: PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE STATEMENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

R4(A) TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT FROM THE COMPLAINANTS

¶24

R4(B) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION BOARD/CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM

¶25

R4(C) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM DATED 17.3.2016

¶26

R4(D) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 17.03.2016

¶27

R4(E) TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 21.03.2016

¶28

R4(F) TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, ERNAKULAM DT.21.03.2016

¶29

R4(G) TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 10109 of 2016 (K)

¶35

-----------------------------------------Dated: 7^th October, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the petitioner's admitted activity of sale of water from the pond existing in the petitioner's property is interdicted by the Municipality.

¶38

The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality as also the additional respondent impleaded, would refer to Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002 ('Act' for short), specifically Section 7, wherein there should be a grant of permit to extract and use ground water. Section 10 of the Act speaks of protection of public drinking water sources, which mandates that no person shall without the permission of the Authority dig

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 10109/2016

¶40

-2-

¶41

well for any purpose within thirty meters from any drinking water source from where water is pumped for public purpose.

¶42

There is some discrepancy in the notice and the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat. The notice indicates that the petitioner is drawing water from a well in the property, which, however, the petitioner asserts is a pond. The additional 4^th respondent, however, submits that the petitioner is drawing water from the 'Kadamparayar' and collecting it in the pits dug in his property and transporting it out of the property for sale as drinking water. This Court had, at the admission stage, directed the 3^rd respondent authority to consider the application, the receipt of which is evidenced at Ext.P4. Obviously, no such consideration was made and the petitioner also thought it convenient not to get the order implemented since

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 10109/2016

¶44

-3-

¶45

there was a status quo order permitting the petitioner to extract water. The extraction now made for sale of drinking water definitely is against the provisions of the Act, especially since the petitioner does not have a case that the petitioner has a permission under the Act.

¶46

In such circumstance, the petitioner's activity will have to be stopped forthwith, which will be ensured by the 3^rd respondent. In any event, the permission, if any, has to be considered by the Ground Water Authority, constituted under Section 3 of the Act, and not the District Officer. In such circumstance, the 3^rd respondent shall conduct an inspection of the property, if not already conducted, and file a report to the Authority, upon which the Authority shall consider the issue with notice to the petitioner, the Municipality and the additional 4^th respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 10109/2016

¶48

-4-

¶49

this judgment. The further extraction of water can only be on a permit granted by the Authority.

¶50

The writ petition is disposed of, with the above

¶51

direction. No Costs.

¶52

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶53

jjj 7/10/16

Suresh George v. Thrikkakara Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh George v. Thrikkakara Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jose.O.M. Vs Village Officer

T.a.Majeed Vs Corporation of Cochin

C.V. Paul & Anr. Vs State of Kerala and Ors.

Jose Vs Alagappanagar Grama Panchayath

Swapna Riju Vs the State of Kerala

Suresh Babu K.R Vs Tripunithura Municipality