Allowed

A.Nazarudheen v. Satheesh

Kerala HC2 Nov 2022WP(C)/15316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Ombudsman's order directing cancellation of a hospital licence due to pollution, finding no statutory jurisdiction as no corruption or mal-administration was alleged. The Court instead directed the Panchayat to inspect the premises, verify waste water treatment adequacy, and address any violations of building or licensing laws.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P13 order and Ext.P14 notice are quashed; 4th directed to inspect premises, enquire into waste water mechanism, and take appropriate action regarding licensing and building rule violations.

A.Nazarudheen Vs Satheesh — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15316 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

A.NAZARUDHEEN CHAIRMAN

¶8

AL NEYADI TRUST HOSPITAL, 16TH MILE, THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695317.

¶9

BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SATHEESH

¶12

PARANVILA VEEDU, 16TH MILE, THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695317.

¶13

2 THANKA NADAR,

¶14

THEKKEVILA, 16TH MILE, THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695317.

¶15

3 AJITHA,

¶16

NADIYA COTTAGE, 16TH MILE, THONNAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695317.

¶17

4 SECRETARY, MANGALAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MANGALAPURAM, THONNAKKAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695317.

¶18

5 OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SAPHALYAM COMPLEX, TIDA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY P.O., PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695034, REPRESENTED BY ITS' SECRETARY.

¶19

BY ADV J.G.SYAMNATH

¶20

BY G.P. SMT. DEEPA

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 15316 OF 2022

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P13 order of the Ombudsman for Local Self-Government Institutions (for short, ‘Ombudsman’) and Ext.P14 notice issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat.

¶26

The petitioner is the 1^st respondent in Ext.P1 Complaint filed by respondents 1 to 3 before the Ombudsman. The grievance raised therein is that due to discharge of waste water from the petitioner's hospital, nearby wells are getting polluted. Accordingly, the Ombudsman passed Ext.P13 order directing the Secretary of the Panchayat to enquire into the functioning of the waste water disposal treatment system of the petitioner and to take necessary action including the cancellation of licence to the hospital. Pursuant to Ext.P13, the 4^th respondent issued Ext.P14 notice requiring the petitioner to introduce waste water treatment facility within 7 days, failing which, the licence of the petitioner will be cancelled.

¶27

¶28

WP(C) NO. 15316 OF 2022

¶29

It is submitted by the petitioner that Ext.P14 notice was issued without any site inspection or hearing him and that the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P13. Accordingly, the writ petition is filed to quash Exts.P13 and P14 and for a direction to the 4^th respondent to inspect the premises of the petitioner and conduct an enquiry on the adequacy of the water discharge mechanism in the compound of the petitioner.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent. Though service is complete, there is no appearance for the other respondents.

¶31

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits that the petitioner has made constructions abutting the compound wall of the 3^rd respondent and is discharging waste water into the property of the 3^rd respondent.

¶32

The powers and functions of the Ombudsman has been statutorily fixed under Section 271 J and M of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The Ombudsman can enquire into the complaints where there are allegations of corruption, mal-

¶33

¶34

WP(C) NO. 15316 OF 2022

¶35

administration or irregularity by public servant viz; the employees of the Panchayat or the elected members of the Panchayat. On a perusal of Ext.P1 complaint, I find that there

¶36

is no allegation of corruption, mal-administration or irregularity in the complaint. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to issue any order in the nature of Ext.P13. Accordingly, the same is quashed. However, this judgment will not prevent the Secretary of the Panchayat from exercising the statutory powers in respect of abatement of any nuisance caused by the petitioner or against any unauthorised construction.

¶37

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the directions in Ext.P14 have been complied with.

¶38

There will be a direction to the 4^th respondent to inspect the premises of the petitioner and conduct an enquiry on the adequacy of the water discharge mechanism and issue necessary directions to the petitioner with regard to treatment of waste water so that no nuisance is caused to the

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 15316 OF 2022

¶41

3^rd respondent and others in the locality, which direction the petitioner shall comply with. The 4^th respondent shall also ascertain whether the petitioner has made any construction in breach of the licensing provisions and Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Building Rules and in case of any violation, the 4^th respondent shall take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶45

al/-

¶46

WP(C) NO. 15316 OF 2022

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15316/2022

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO. 453/2019 OF OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE LEARNED OMBUDSMAN DATED 17.01.2022 IN COMPLAINT NO. 453/2019.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER TO EXT-P1 COMPLAINT
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT-P3 OBJECTION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER DATED 11.01.2022.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AFFILIATION ISSUED BY THE INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION GOES ECO- FRIENDLY (IMAGE).
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COORDINATOR REPORT OF THE INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION GOES ECOFRIENDLY (IMAGE) DATED 22.04.2022.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.01.2022
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21.01.2022
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 11.02.2022 BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.01.2022.
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 17.01.2022.
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DATED 17.03.2022.
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.04.2022.

A.Nazarudheen v. Satheesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Nazarudheen v. Satheesh

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

The Director, Vs the Chalakkudy Municipality

Abdul Rahiman Vs the Secretary

Shri. Ulahannan, Vs the Director of Mining and Geology Department

K. Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Baby, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Vishnukumar S Vs State of Kerala