Allowed

Shibina S. F. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Mar 2024WP(C)/5020/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the deferral of a No Objection Certificate for a drinking water unit. The Court held that due to elapsed time and changed ground realities, the State Ground Water Authority must conduct fresh tests and complete proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Ground Water Authority to complete proceedings on the petitioner's proposal including necessary tests within three months of receipt of the judgment copy.

Shibina S. F. Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945 W.P.(C) NO.5020 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SHIBINA S.F., AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. MUJEEB P.M., PROPRIETOR AQUA GREEN, MUKATHALA BLOCK, MUTTAKKAVU, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 576.

¶7

BY ADVS. B.J.JOHN PRAKASH P.PRAMEL COLIN ALEX SOORAJ M.S. VARSHA VIJAYAKUMAR NAIR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES, NORTH BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶10

2 STATE GROUND WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, JALAVIJNANA BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003.

¶11

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION RD, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN-691 013.

¶12

4 KOLLAM DISTRICT LEVEL EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, DISTRICT OFFICER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, RIYA, ORA 48, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, THEAVALLY P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 009.

¶13

-2-

¶14

W.P.(C) NO.5020 OF 2024

¶15

5 DISTRICT OFFICER GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, RIYA, ORA 48, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, THEAVALLY P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691 009.

¶16

R1-R5 SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

-3-

¶19

W.P.(C) NO.5020 OF 2024

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2024

¶22

The petitioner impugns Ext.P13 order of the 5^th respondent – District Officer, through which, his application for a No Objection Certificate (NOC), for obtaining a licence to operate a package drinking water unit, by extracting 10,000 litres of water per day from an open well in her premises - as recommended by Ext.P12, has been ordered to be deferred, pending approval from the State Ground Water Authority (SGWA).

¶23

Sri.John Prakash – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that Ext.P13 is in error because, a further concurrence from the “SGWA” is not necessary, when it had already cleared the proposal, particularly when the 3^rd respondent has already found that the petitioner can extract 10,000 litres of water per day. He thus prayed that Ext.P13 be set aside and the 3^rd respondent – District Collector, be directed to issue the necessary 'NOC', so as to enable him to extract the requisite amount of water from the well in question.

¶24

-4-

¶25

W.P.(C) NO.5020 OF 2024

¶26

In response to the afore submissions of the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2, wherein, it has been averred that the proposal of the petitioner was placed in the 33^rd meeting of the “SGWA”, held on 21.02.2024; and that it sought a new report because the ground “level water fluctuation trend” and “hydrogeological status” of Mukhathala Block, was conducted as early as in the year 2016. He showed me Ext.R2(a) in substantiation and argued that therefore, on account of efflux of time and the changed circumstances, without a proper test being again conducted, it would be impossible to allow the petitioner to draw water, especially for quantity as large as 10,000 litres per day. He thus prayed that Ext.P13 be not interdicted; however, adding that the “SGWA” will consider the petitioner's proposal immediately and without any delay, if possible, in their next meeting itself.

¶27

I find force in the afore submissions of the learned Government Pleader because, if the Tests as mentioned above were conducted as early as in the year 2016, it would not be permissible to allow the proposal in the present year, when the

¶28

-5-

¶29

W.P.(C) NO.5020 OF 2024

¶30

ground realities may have certainly been altered. I am, therefore, of the firm view that it will be prudent for this Court to direct the “SLEC” to complete proceedings on the petitioner's proposal, adverting to Ext.P13, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶31

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition, directing the 2^nd respondent - State Ground Water Authority, to immediately take up the proposal of the petitioner and issue final orders thereon, after conducting necessary tests and evaluation and after affording her an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

I, however, clarify that I have not entered into the merits of any other rival contentions and that all of them are left open.

¶33

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶34

bpr

¶35

-6-

¶36

W.P.(C) NO.5020 OF 2024

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5020/2024

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit-P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
	09.05.2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P2	TRUE COPY OF THE UDYAM REGISTRATION
	DATED 16.12.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit-P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Exhibit-P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES & BOILERS DATED 31.10.2023
Exhibit-P5	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 02.09.2023
Exhibit-P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LICENSE DATED 15.09.2023 ISSUED BY NEDUMPANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
Exhibit-P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 09.10.2023 ISSUED BY BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
Exhibit-P8	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 05.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA EVIDENCING THE NATURE OF CREDIT FACILITIES, LIMIT AND THE EMI PAID BY THE PETITIONER SINCE 2020.
Exhibit-P9	TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINE/CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS/REQUEST FOR GROUND WATER ABSTRACTION IN KERALA WITHOUT THE ANNEXURES DATED 15.04.2018.

¶40

-7-

¶41

W.P.(C) NO.5020 OF 2024

¶42

Exhibit-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF WATER INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES PROMULGATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF BOTTLING UNITS SANCTIONED BY KERALA STATE GROUND WATER AUTHORITY IN THE DISTRICT OF KOLLAM. Exhibit-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 27.01.2021. Exhibit-P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE 33RD MEETING DATED 21.02.2024

Shibina S. F. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibina S. F. v. State of Kerala

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

K.M. Noushad Hussain Vs State of Kerala

P.R.Bijoykumar Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

L.Devadas, Vs the District Collector

Deepa N v Vs State of Kerala

Dhanavarna India Nidhi Limited, Vs Union of India

Mookkuthala Nidhi Limited Vs Union of India