A writ petition direced the District Collector to consider a complaint about a packaged drinking water unit illegally tapping groundwater and taking appropriate action after a hearing.
Directed the District Collector to consider the complained and take a decision after affording an opportunity of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1942
WP(C).No.12046 OF 2013(E)
PETITIONER/S:
C.S.SUNDARANPILLA AGED 52 YEARS S/O.SANKARANPILLA, CHENNALA HOUSE, ARABI P.O., ULICKKAL, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT/S:
2 ULICKKAL PANCHAYATH ULICKKAL, KANNUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-670705.
3 ST.MARYS WATE TECH ARABI P.O., ULICKKAL, KANNUR PIN-670705.
R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
OTHER PRESENT:
GP DEEPA NARAYANAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 02.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.12046 of 2013
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2020.
The petitioner, a resident of the second respondent Panchayat, is aggrieved by the indiscriminate exploitation of ground water by the third respondent on the strength of permit issued by the second respondent Panchayat for conducting a packaged drinking water unit. According to the
petitioner, the area is facing acute water shortage and is depended on the Jalanidhi Project of the Government of Kerala for its drinking water
requirements. The unit of the third respondent is stated to be functioning in a valley and the indiscriminate pumping of ground water by the unit is alleged to have led to depletion of the water table. As per the allegation in the writ petition, the unit is being conducted without the requisite licences/clearance from the statutory authorities. Pointing out these facts and requesting for
W.P.(C) No.12046 of 2013
3
closure of unit, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 complaint before the first respondent. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P1 complaint and to take appropriate action against the indiscriminate and illegal tapping of ground water by the third respondent, especially during the peak summer season.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat and the learned Counsel for the third respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that shortage of drinking water consequent to depletion of water level is a perennial problem and therefore, the complaint, though submitted in the year 2013 is relevant even now. It is pointed out that the third respondent
is continuing with its activities resulting in
W.P.(C) No.12046 of 2013
4
worsening of the situation. The learned Counsel for the third respondent submits that the unit is functioning with all requisite licences/clearance and the said submission is supported by the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat.
4. Indiscriminate tapping of ground water by units like the third respondent, though on the strength of licences and clearance from the
statutory authorities, even lead to water scarcity. It is true that at present, there is no law which prohibits grant of permission for
conduct of units like that of the third respondent. The inadequacy of law is a matter which should engage the attention of the law makers. Being a Local Self Government Institution,
the welfare of the people, as against the business interest of an individual, should weigh with the Panchayat, while granting licences/permits.
Since the prayer is only for consideration of
W.P.(C) No.12046 of 2013
5
Ext.P1 complaint, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 and take a decision thereon in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the third respondent. No order as to costs.
sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Scl/2.06
W.P.(C) No.12046 of 2013
6
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29-4-2013 SUBMITTED TO THE R1. EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT.1-5-2013. EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PH0TOGRAPHS.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the District Collector should consider the petitioner's complaint regarding illegal groundwater tapping.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.S. Sundaranpilla
The District Collector, Collectorate, Kannur
Ulickkal Panchayath
St. Marys Wate Tech
V.G. Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
