Allowed

John Paul v. the Vengola Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC11 Jan 2022WP(C)/26283/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission directing relocation of the petitioner's biogas plant due to alleged water pollution. The High Court quashed the Commission's order, finding the decision contrary to the Kerala State Pollution Control Board's scientific report, while keeping the issue of pollution liability open.

What did the court decide?

The direction to relocate the biogas plant issued by the Human Rights Commission was quashed; liberty granted to the neighbor to approach competent authorities regarding pollution grievances.

John Paul Vs the Vengola Grama Panchayat — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 26283 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

JOHN PAUL

AGED 69 YEARS

S/O. PAULOSE, KANDANADAN HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O. PERUMBAVOOR-683 556.

¶11

BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT VENGOLA P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 556, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

2 THE SECRETARY

¶15

THE VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VENGOLA P.O.,

¶16

ERNAKULAM-683 556.

¶17

3 THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION 4TH FLOOR TURBO PLUS TOWER PMG ROAD, JUNCTION, NEAR PMG, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA695 033.

¶18

4 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD X7FV+WV7, KADAVANTHARA, MIG AND HIG COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682 020.

¶19

5 THE AGENCY FOR NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY AND RURAL TECHNOLOGY (ANERT) REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT ENGINEER, ANERT DISTRICT OFFICE, A1, ASHOKA APARTMENT, KAKKANAD, KERALA-682 030.

¶20

6 C.K. SANTHA W/O. KUTTAPAN, KUNNATHUSSERY (KAMBIKKUDI), VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR-683 556.

¶21

BY ADVS.

¶22

SHRI.C.A.NAVAS, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1 & R2 SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R4 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R5 SRI.S.VINOD BHAT FOR R6

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022 SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

S. MANIKUMAR, CJ.

¶28

Writ petition is filed by the 2^nd respondent – Mr.John Paul, in Case No.2857/11/3/2019/EKM, on the file of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, challenging the order of the Chairperson, Kerala State Human Rights Commission, Thiruvananthapuram Dated 19.09.2019, whereby, the following directions were issued by the Human Rights Commission:

¶29

“The Commission examined the Complaint and the report. The complainant and the respondents were heard in person also. It can be seen that the waste pit and the plastic waste were removed and the poultry farm was stopped only after the affixture of the notice by the Panchayat on seeing that the allegation of the complainant is true based on the site inspection report of the Vengola Health Inspector. It was found that the distance between the well of the complainant and that of the bio gas plant of the opposite party is only two meters. This was not denied by the respondent . The test report proves the presence of coli form and e-coli bacteria in the well of the petitioner. In addition to that it is also to be endorsed that the well of the complainant became polluted only after the installation of the biogas plant and waste put by the opposite party. It can be understood that the bio gas plant was installed without keeping the prescribed distance under the Panchayat Raj Act. Even though the

¶30

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶31

¶32

respondent argued that the biogas plant was constructed under the supervision of ANERT and with the permission of the pollution control board the respondents failed to produce any documents to substantiate the said contention. Under these circumstances the complaint is disposed of with direction to the Vengola Grama Panchayat Secretary to give direction to the respondent to relocate the said bio gas plant thereby to have a solution to the complaint."

¶33

Basic material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows;

¶34

Petitioner has constructed a biogas plant with the assistance and financial support of the Agency for Non Conventional Energy and Rural Technology (ANERT), after complying with all pollution control measures. According to the petitioner, it is a concrete structure and absolutely, there is no possibility of any leakage and the construction was done in the year 2015. That apart, it is stated that the construction was carried out leaving 2 meters from the boundary of petitioner's property. It is the case of the petitioner that as per rule 79 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, the minimum distance from the plot boundaries is 1.20 meters.

¶35

However, the 6^th respondent, who is the neighbour of the petitioner, lodged complaints that water in her well is polluted due to leakage of waste from the biogas plant of the petitioner before the District Collector, Revenue Divisional

¶36

Officer, Grama Panchayat, Sub Inspector of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, within his jurisdictional limits in Ernakulam District.

¶37

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶38

¶39

It is also the case of the petitioner that on receipt of notice, petitioner appeared before all the authorities and submitted that there is no chance of any pollution causing from the biogas plant since it was constructed by ANERT by observing all the pollution control measures. Petitioner pointed out before all the authorities that a single pit toilet tank of the 6^th respondent situated very near to the well of the 6^th respondent causes the presence of e-coli and coliform bacteria, which emanates from the human waste and which is the reason for the alleged water pollution in the well of the 6^th respondent.

¶40

The 6^th respondent has lodged a complaint to the State Human Rights Commission, as evident from Exhibit P6. Petitioner has submitted Exhibit P7 reply and reiterated the stand adopted by him and deliberated above. However, the State Human Rights Commission passed Exhibit P8, impugned order directing the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to give directions to the petitioner to relocate the biogas plant, thereby to have a solution to the complaint raised by the 6^th respondent .

¶41

On a perusal of the order, it is seen that the State Human Rights Commission has mainly relied on the report of the Health Inspector to issue the above directions. Therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioner is that no adjudication was done, with respect to the cause of pollution, by resorting to a scientific study through the Pollution Control Board or ANERT. It is also submitted

¶42

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶43

¶44

that the Human Rights Commission has not taken any efforts to identify the exact situation by calling reports from the expert bodies.

¶45

Pursuant to the directions issued by the State Human Rights Commission, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat – 2^nd respondent, has issued Exhibit P13 notice dated 30.10.2021 directing the petitioner to shift the biogas plant from the existing plant and further cautioned that if it is not done, the Panchayat will directly demolish the construction and that, the entire loss and damages as a consequence of the same will be realised from the petitioner. In the aforesaid said backdrop, following are the legal contentions raised:

¶46

According to the petitioner, Exhibit P6 complaint filed by the 6^th respondent is pertaining to a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 6^th respondent; it is not one dealing with violation of Human Rights, as defined under section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993; such complaint cannot be entertained by the 3^rd respondent; Jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain a complaint relating to the issues raised in civil dispute is excluded under Regulation 17(e) and (f) of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulation 2001; hence, the 3^rd respondent went wrong in entertaining Exhibit P6 complaint, and Exhibit P8 order is passed exceeding the jurisdiction of the 3^rd respondent.

¶47

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶48

¶49

It is also stated by the petitioner that the 3^rd respondent adjudicated the issue regarding the cause of water pollution in the well of the 6^th respondent without obtaining any scientific report either from the Pollution Control Board or from ANERT; petitioner specifically pleaded before the 3^rd respondent that the biogas plant was constructed by ANERT by observing the pollution control measures and it is a complete concrete structure without any possibility of leakage.

¶50

The petitioner has also pointed out that the toilet tank of the 6^th respondent is a single pit one and it is not a scientifically constructed toilet tank.; that the coliform and e-coli bacteria can only emanate from human waste. Hence, the petitioner contended that the water being polluted due to the single pit toilet tank of the 6^th respondent, which is also very near to the well; the 3^rd respondent being the adjudicating authority, ought to have conducted an enquiry through the Pollution Control Board or through ANERT in order to find out the real cause of pollution; such expert opinion was not obtained by the 3^rd respondent while rendering Exhibit P8.

¶51

It is also stated by the petitioner that the 3^rd respondent only relied upon the report of the Health Inspector, in which it was reported that the water is polluted; the Health Inspector is not an expert agency to decide the cause and source of the water pollution and hence there is no justification in ordering

¶52

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶53

¶54

demolition of the existing plant without obtaining any expert opinion as to whether the biogas plant is the cause for the pollution.

¶55

According to the petitioner, there is no evidence before the 3^rd respondent to substantiate that it is after the establishment of the biogas plant by the petitioner, the water got polluted and 3^rd respondent, simply relied upon the statement of the 6^th respondent in this regard. Further, there was no evidence to substantiate that pollution to the water is caused from the biogas plant.

¶56

It is further stated, it could be evidenced from Exhibits P1 to P5 that the biogas plant was scientifically established by ANERT taking into consideration of all the Pollution Control measures; that the 3^rd respondent rejected the contention of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner could not produce the necessary documents regarding the constructions done by the ANERT. According to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent could have obtained an expert opinion from the ANERT as to whether there is any possibility to have leakage from the biogas plant constructed by them and hence, the adjudication process of the 3^rd respondent is not legal and justifiable.

¶57

According to the petitioner, the finding of the 3^rd respondent that the biogas plant was constructed without keeping sufficient distance as provided under the Panchayat Raj Act, is also incorrect. The Rule 79 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules is the relevant rule applicable and the minimum distance from the

¶58

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶59

¶60

boundary as per rule 79(4) is 1.2 meters. Here, the construction carried out is admittedly by leaving a distance of 2 meters and hence, findings of the 3^rd respondent in this regard is incorrect.

¶61

According to the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that the wellconstructed by the 6^th respondent is in violation of Rule 75(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules 2019. The minimum set back from the boundary of the petitioner required is 1.20 meters. However the well is constructed very near to the petitioner's boundary. Hence, the well itself is liable to be shifted and the said issue was not considered by the 3^rd respondent.

¶62

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent advanced arguments fully supporting the order of the State Human Rights Commission. It is also pointed out that as per the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, septic tank, soak pit etc. can be constructed only leaving a distance of 7.5 meters from the nearby well and thinking so, since the petitioner had admitted that his biogas plant is situated 2 meters away from the boundary of the 6^th respondent, it is clear that there is violation of rule 75 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019.

¶63

Having regard to the averments, when the matter came up for admission on 16^th December, 2021, we have directed the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board – respondent No.4, to conduct a joint inspection of

¶64

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶65

¶66

the subject site along with ANERT – respondent No.5, measure the distance between the existing biogas plant and waste pit constructed by the writ petitioner and ascertain the cause of pollution of the water in the well owned by respondent No.6/complainant . It was further directed that the Environmental Engineer shall also take into consideration the report submitted by the Vengola Grama Panchayat, which was taken into consideration by the State Human Rights Commission in order to render the directions contained in its impugned order.

¶67

Accordingly, the Environmental Engineer, District Office, Kerala Pollution Control Board has submitted a report dated 5^th January, 2022, along with a sketch showing the exact location of the biogas plant of the writ petitioner, well in the property of the 6^th respondent, residential house of both parties and other installations in the respective properties. The report is self explanatory in respect to the aspects to be considered by this Court and the relevant portion of the same reads thus:

¶68

“3. In compliance with the order of this Hon'ble Court distance to the well of the 6^th respondent from the biogas plant, slurry tank was measured. During the inspection the distance measured is as follows:

¶69

Distance from the Biogas plant to the complainant's well – 1.3 m

¶70

Distance from the slurry tank to the complainant's well – 2.1 m

¶71

Distance from the septic tank of the 6^th respondent to the 6^th

¶72

respondent's well – 10.5 m

¶73

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶74

¶75

Distance from the soak pit for collection of waste water from kitchen, work area of the 6^th respondent to 6^th respondent's well – 8.8 m

¶76

The 6^th respondent stated that the septic tank and the soak pit of the petitioner's residence are situated very close to the boundary of the property and very close to his well. The petitioner denied the allegations and stated that the septic tank and soak pit is not situated close to the boundary and that it is located about 8 m from the complainant's well. As the alleged location is fully paved with tile and roofed and the same was used as a storage area of scraps, an exact verification was not possible without removing the tiles and roofing. Similarly, the backyard of the petitioner is also paved with tiles. A true copy of the site plan (sketch) is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R-4(b)

¶77

It is submitted that water samples were collected from the well of the 6^th respondent and the well of a neighbour residing in the northern side of the complainant's property. True copy of the analysis report dated 04.01.2022 of the water sample collected from the well water of 6^th respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R4(c). True copy of the analysis report dated 04.01.2022 of the water sample collected from the well water of the neighbour residing at the northern side of the complainant's property is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R- 4(d). As per analysis report of the well water of the complainant the parameters PH, COD, Nitrates, Chlorides, Phosphate are within the permissible limit of drinking water standard. But the value of total coliform and faecal coliform is 51 CFU/100 ml and 24 CFU/100 ml respectively. Since the value of nitrate and ammoniacal nitrogen, as per the analysis report, are within the prescribed standard, it cannot be assumed that the contamination of well water is due to leakage from biogas plant and slurry tank. Also the lower values of sulphates, phosphates, Chlorides indicates no contamination occurred due to faecal matter. However, the presence of faecal coliform in

¶78

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶79

¶80

both the samples may be due to the location of the soak pit/septic tanks, which can be identified by a ground water study by the appropriate authority.”

¶81

It is submitted that the samples collected from the neighbour's well also showed similar values. It is further submitted that no reports of the Panchayat are brought to the notice of this respondent.”

¶82

It is also evident from Annexure R4(a) that notice was issued to all the parties concerned as directed by this Court, however the Panchayat has not produced the report submitted before the State Commission. The analysis report produced as Exhibit R4(c) in respect of the well water of the 6^th respondent shows that there is presence of coli-forms in the well water. However, the extracted portion of the report indicates that it cannot be assumed that the contamination of well water is due to leakage from the biogas plant and slurry tank. It is also evident that the lower values of Sulphates, Phosphates, Chlorides indicate no contamination occurred due to faecal matter. However, it is also opined that the presence of faecal coliform in both the samples may be due to the location of the soak pit/septic tanks, which can be identified by a ground water study by the appropriate authority. Annexure R4(d) is an analysis report of the well water of a neighbour, in which also, similar values could be gathered by the Pollution Control Board.

¶83

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶84

¶85

We have heard learned counsel Shri.Sanjeev Kumar K. Gopal for the writ petitioner, learned counsel Sri.Vinod Bhat for the 6^th respondent, Sri.C.A.Navas, learned Standing Counsel for the Vengola Grama Panchayat and its Secretary, Sri.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Pollution Control Board and learned counsel Sri.T.R.Harikumar for ANERT and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶86

Respective counsel have addressed arguments in accordance with the deliberations made above. The case put forth by the petitioner is that the report of the Pollution Control Board makes it amply clear that there is no pollution caused from the biogas plant maintained by the writ petitioner .

¶87

23 . On the other hand, learned counsel for 6^th respondent Sri. Vinod Bhat, submitted that the Environmental Engineer has not concluded that the pollution is not caused from the biogas plant but in the report it is only stated it may not be merely assumed that pollution is caused from the biogas plant.

¶88

We have also gone through rule 75 & rule 79 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 relied upon by the rival counsel. The said Rules read thus:

¶89

“ 75. WELLS (1) Essentially of permit.-

¶90

(i) No new well shall be dug without the permission of the Secretary. (ii) Where any person intends to dig an open well /tube well/bore well, he shall submit an application in the form in Appendix A1 to the Secretary, together with site plan and documents to prove the ownership.

¶91

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶92

¶93

(iii) The site plan shall show the position and dimension of the well and all existing and proposed buildings and structures in the site and within 7.5 metres radius from that well.

¶94

(2) Setback.-

¶95

(i) The set back from any street shall be as that required for a building.

¶96

(ii) There shall be a minimum 1.20 metres set back from other boundaries.

¶97

(iii) The well may be located within or abutting or away from the building in the plot.

¶98

(iv) No leech pit, sock pit, refuse pit, earth closet or septic tank shall be allowed or made within a distance of 7.5 metres radius from any existing well used for supply of water for human consumption or domestic purpose or within 1.2 m distance from the plot boundaries.

¶99

(3) Wall and surrounding: - The well shall be protected with brick wall with minimum 1 metre height.

¶100

(4) Fees: - The application fee and permit fee shall be as in Schedule I and Schedule II respectively.

¶101

(5) Approval of plan and issue of permit: -The Secretary shall, if convinced of the boundaries and plan and bonafides of the ownership approve the plan with or without modification and issue permit. In the case of tube wells, once the clearance from Ground Water Department is obtained by the applicant and furnished, the Secretary shall issue the permit on the same day of receipt of application along with prescribed fee.

¶102

(6) Validity and extension:-

¶103

(1) The permit once issued shall be valid for three years and cannot be extended.

¶104

(7). Completion report: - The applicant shall submit a completion report to the Secretary, in white paper typed or written in ink, specifying the date of completion

¶105

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶106

¶107

Waste management. - (1) Every new building shall be provided with provisions for segregation of waste wherever applicable and safe disposal of waste.

¶108

(2) Every new building of built-up area exceeding 100 sq.metres shall be provided with a septic tank of suitable size unless it is connected to a public sewerage system or sewage treatment plant. The design criteria and construction shall be as per the Code of Practice for the septic tanks – IS 2470.

¶109

(3) Every new residential building of built-up area exceeding 300 sq.metres shall be provided with suitable systems such as biogas plants etc. for the disposal of bio- waste, unless there exists an organized system for collection and disposal of such waste. For all other occupancies, a waste management system as stipulated by the Pollution Control Board shall be provided.

¶110

(4) Leach pit, sock pit, refuse pit or septic tank shall have a minimum distance of 1.20 metres from the plot boundaries. (5) In wedding halls where cooking and dining facilities are provided, proper and adequate arrangements for collection and hygienic disposal of solid and liquid waste shall be ensured to the satisfaction of the Secretary. (6) Water Re-use and Recycling: All buildings under Group A1 (Residential apartments only) and A2 occupancy having total built-up area more than 2000 sq. metres shall incorporate in-situ liquid waste management treatment plant and special provision for recycling and reusing of waste water generated out of the use of water .

¶111

(7) Water Reuse and Recycling: All buildings under B, C, D, E, F and J occupancies having total built-up area more than 5000 sq. metres and all buildings under G1, G2 and I occupancy shall incorporate in-situ waste liquid waste management treatment plant and special provision for recycling and reusing of waste water generated out of the use of water. "

¶112

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶113

¶114

True there are provisions dealing with the distance to be provided by and between certain ancillary constructions, but , it is an admitted fact that the biogas plant was constructed in the year 2015 and the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2019 has come into force on and w.e.f.02.11.2019 only. Therefore, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be legally presumed that the provisions of the Rules, 2019 could have been made applicable for the construction of the biogas plant in the year 2015. But at the same time substantially typical provisions were available under sections 87, 88, 91 and 92 of the erstwhile Kerala Panchayat Building Rules 2011 in regard to construction of wells, however these were not matters for consideration before the Commission . Whatever that be, in view of the report of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board discussed above it cannot be concluded that the pollution is caused by the biogas plant . The Human Rights Commission has passed Exhibit P8 order basically relying upon the report of the Health Inspector stating that there is presence of coliform and ecoli bacteria and the distance between the well of the 6^th respondent /complainant and the biogas plant of the opposite party is only 2 meters. It was in the said background that the directions were issued. But now the Pollution Control Board has reported that it cannot be assumed that the pollution is caused by the biogas plant of the writ petitioner. Therefore, it can be seen that there is stark contradiction between the report of the Health Inspector, relied upon by the State Human Rights Commission,

¶115

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶116

¶117

and the report of the Kerala Pollution Control Board.

¶118

In our view, the State Human Rights Commission has passed the impugned order on the basis of a spot inspection conducted by the Health Inspector of the Vengola Grama Panchayat, however, that by itself cannot be treated as a conclusive proof in order to arrive at the conclusion that the pollution was caused to the well from the biogas plant maintained by the petitioner. Be that as it may,, since the State Pollution Control Board has filed a report primarily holding that there are no circumstances available to assume that the pollution is caused to the well of the 6^th respondent from the biogas plant of the writ petitioner, the facts have become complex and necessarily to be correctly assessed by a competent fact finding court/ body.

¶119

Anyhow, we are of the clear opinion that the direction issued by the State Human Rights Commission to the Panchayat for taking appropriate action for relocating the Biogas plant of the writ petitioner, cannot be sustained under law and therefore, it is quashed. But at the same time, there is no concrete material before this Court to arrive at a definite conclusion; the aspect with respect to the pollution caused to the well water of the 6^th respondent. In that view of the matter, we leave open that question, and grant liberty to the 6^th respondent to approach the Ground Water Authority or any competent authority under any laws or the competent civil court to redress the grievances with respect to the pollution caused

¶120

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶121

¶122

to the well water.

¶123

In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition would stand allowed, however, with the above said observations.

Sd/-

MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

smv

JUDGE

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶132

¶133

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26283/2021

¶134

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶135

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE ANERT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.3.2015.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE TURN-KEY AGENT REGARDING INSTALLATION OF BIOGAS PLANT 18.4.2015.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE CONSUMER REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF THE BIOGAS PLANT DATED 18.4.2015.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF THE PLANT BY THE DISTRICT ENGINEER ANERT DATED 20.5.2015.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 5.7.2018 VIDE NO.A6 6044/2018.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.4.2019.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION DATED 13.8.2019.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN HRMP NO.2587/11/3/2019 DATED 18.9.2019.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.3.2021 VIDE NO.A6-2460/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.4.2021 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.9.2021 VIDE NO.A6-6594/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.9.2021 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.10.2021 VIDE NO.A6-6594 OF 2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶136

W.P.(C) No.26283 of 2021

¶137

¶138

Exhibit P14

¶139

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 27.10.2021 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES ANNEXURE R4(a) – TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE SHEET DATED 30.12.2021, ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶140

ANNEXURE R4(b) – TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN ANNEXURE R4(c) – TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT DATED 4.1.2022 OF THE WATER SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM THE WELL WATER OF 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶141

ANNEXURE R4(d) – TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT DATED 4.1.2022 OF THE WATER SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM THE WELL WATER OF THE NEIGHBOUR RESIDING AT THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT'S PROPERTY.

John Paul v. the Vengola Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Paul v. the Vengola Grama Panchayat

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

Prof.M. K. Sanoo Vs State of Kerala

Prof. M.K.Sanoo Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan M. Vs Union of India

Jimson Titus Vs the Chief Manager

Benny Sebasstian Vs State of Kerala

L.L.Sreejith Babu Vs Hari Kumar