Dismissed

Mariyapuram Poura Samithy v. Leo V.J

Kerala HC9 Mar 2018Con.Case(C)/232/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the Court found that failure to clean wells and supply water as directed was due to obstructions, not willful disobedience. It granted the petitioner an undertaking not to obstruct to allow the Pollution Control Board and the factory owner to fulfill their obligations. The contempt proceedings were closed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner given undertaking not to cause obstruction; Respondents directed to carry out obligations under interim order; Contempt case closed.

Mariyapuram Poura Samithy Vs Leo V.J — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶6

Con.Case(C).No. 232 of 2018 IN WPC. 34132/2016

¶7

AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) 34132/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 02-02-2017

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NO. 3

¶9

MARIYAPURAM POURA SAMITHY REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DAVIS POOZHIKKAL, S/O. LAZAR, RESIDING AT POOZHIKKAL HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM, ANCHERI P.O., OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680 006.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SRI.V.HARISH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER -6TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS:

¶12

LEO V.J AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. V.V. JOHNY, RESIDING AT VALLACHIRAKKARAN HOUSE, ANCHERI P.O., MARIYAPURAM, THRISSUR - 680 006.

¶13

SUSHEELA NAIR (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, CHEMUKAVU, THRISSUR.

¶14

M. NIZARUDHEEN (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR. R2 BY ADV. SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, R3 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL R3 BY ADV. SMT.R.RAJITHA R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

Con.Case(C).No. 232 of 2018 IN WPC. 34132/2016

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶19

A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 02.02.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.34132 OF 2016

¶20

A2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 14.03.2017 IN I A NO.4347/2017 IN WPC NO.34132/2016

¶21

A3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.05.2017 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION

¶22

A4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION

¶23

A5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICTION DATED 15.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION

¶24

A6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.06.2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION

¶25

A7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.07.2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION

¶26

A8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION

¶27

A9: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION.

¶28

A10: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 06.08.2017 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION

¶29

A11: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR ALONG WITH ITS TRANSLATION

¶30

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES

¶31

R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13.3.2017 FILED BY THE PCB BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.34132/2016 ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS

¶32

R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT, EXHIBITS AND PETITIONS NUMBERED AS IA NO.4346/2017 AND I A 4347/2017 IN WPC 32132/2017

¶33

R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER TO THE SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶34

R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING CONDUCTED ON 11.4.2017 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶35

R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THIS RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION

¶36

R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.6.2017 ISSUED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER OF ULLOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶37

JJJ

¶38

ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &

¶39

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶40

Contempt Case (Civil) No. 232 of 2018 (S)

¶41

Dated: 09^th March, 2018

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

Antony Dominic, C.J.

¶44

The third respondent in W.P.(C) No.34132 of 2016 has filed this petition under the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that the respondents herein have disobeyed Annexure A1 order passed by this Court on 2^nd February, 2017. By this order, this Court directed the Pollution Control Board to identify the wells, the water of which are acidic in nature, in the immediate neighbourhood of the factory of the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner and to get the wells cleaned by him under the supervision of the Pollution Control Board. It was also directed that in the meanwhile, drinking water shall be supplied by the writ petitioner to the owners of the affected wells who are not availing supply of water from the Kerala Water Authority.

¶45

COC No. 232/2018

¶46

-2-

¶47

It is the case of the petitioner herein that despite their requirement of continued supply of water and cleaning of the wells, both the writ petitioner and the Pollution Control Board have failed in their duties. They also accuse the Secretary of the Corporation for having not taken action against the writ petitioner, in pursuance of the liberty given by this Court in Annexure A1.

¶48

From the affidavits filed by the parties and the submissions made before us by the respective Counsel appearing for the respondents, we find that it is the case of the Pollution Control Board that in pursuance of Annexure A1 order, they have already identified sixteen affected wells and that three of these wells have already been cleaned up. It is stated that the cleaning of the remaining wells could not be continued on account of the obstruction caused by the members of the petitioner herein. Insofar as the case of the writ petitioner is concerned, he also says that though initially he could supply drinking water as directed by this

¶49

COC No. 232/2018

¶50

-3-

¶51

Court, continued supply was rendered impossible on account of the obstruction caused by the members of the petitioner. He also referred to Annexure A2, where he had to seek orders for police protection for the normal functioning of the factory. Reference is also made to the affidavit in Annexure R1(a), where, according to him, he has explained the obstruction faced by him in the matter of supply of drinking water as well. Similar is the contention raised by the 3^rd respondent also.

¶52

From the material now available before this Court, we are fairly clear in our mind that the cleaning of the wells and continued supply of water could not be done, as directed by this Court, on account of the obstructions caused. In such a situation we are not persuaded to find any willful disobedience of the directions of this Court rendering the respondents liable to be proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶53

COC No. 232/2018

¶54

-4-

¶55

However, before us, both the Pollution Control Board and the writ petitioner reiterated their willingness to continue cleaning up of the wells and supply of drinking water, as ordered in the writ petition by order dated 02.02.2017. Their only apprehension is the obstructions from the members of the petitioner. Petitioner reiterates that they have not caused any obstruction and that they do not intend to cause any obstruction either.

¶56

In such circumstances, we record the submissions made on behalf of the Pollution Control Board and the writ petitioner and direct that in view of the undertaking given by the Counsel for the petitioner herein that their members would not cause any obstruction in the implementation of this Court's order, the Board and the writ petitioner shall carryout their obligations under the order dated 02.02.2017.

¶57

It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the Pollution Control Board considering the

¶58

COC No. 232/2018

¶59

-5-

¶60

request, if any, from the petitioner, for identifying any other wells in addition to the sixteen already identified, provided they are satisfied that the drinking water therein is affected directly on account of the functioning of the writ petitioner's unit.

¶61

The contempt case is closed.

¶62

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶63

Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶64

jjj 09/03/2018

Mariyapuram Poura Samithy v. Leo V.J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyapuram Poura Samithy v. Leo V.J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anas Vs Shri Virendra Kumar

Abdul Bari Vs Syndicate Bank

Hassankutty Vs the District Collector Idukki

S.Sanal Kumar Vs the Divisional Officer, United India Insurance Co.Ltd

Laly Roy Vs the Greater Cochin Development Authority

Adv.T.M.Sudheer Vs Home Secretary Union of India