C Indira Devi v. the Chirakkara Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC1 Apr 2025WP(C)/23367/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cesspool removal direction; well water contamination; prohibited distance less than 7.5 metres; construction without panchayat permit; Chirakkara Grama Panchayat enforcement duty not suspended by pending writ petition; non-compliance with demolition notices; Kerala High Court at Ernakulam; Justice Viju Abraham; decided 01.04.2025; W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2022; neutral citation 2025:KER:28178.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to ensure removal of the cesspool constructed by respondents 4 and 5 in violation of the relevant rules, without delay and at the outer limit within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, with notice to respondents 4 and 5. ¶¶41

C Indira Devi Vs the Chirakkara Grama Panchayat — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 3 are to be directed to take immediate steps to remove the cesspool illegally constructed by respondents 4 and 5 close to the petitioner's well. +1 more

¶¶30

Court's answer

The Court proceeded on the footing that the cesspool constructed by respondents 4 and 5 is within the prohibited distance and was constructed without obtaining any permit from the 1st respondent Panchayat.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

Pendency of the writ petition was not a valid reason for respondents 1 and 2 to defer taking further action for removal of the cesspool constructed by respondents 4 and 5, which is within the prohibited distance and was built without permit from the 1st respondent Panchayat.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to see that the cesspool constructed by respondents 4 and 5 in violation of the relevant rules is removed.ratio¶¶36
The removal is to be effected without any delay, at any rate within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, with notice to respondents 4 and 5.ratio¶¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kerala High Court (Viju Abraham, J.), Ernakulam, disposed of W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2022 filed by a 73-year-old resident of Nedungolam, Kollam, who complained that respondents 4 and 5 had recently constructed a cesspool on the western side of their property less than 7.5 metres from her well of over 50 years, used for drinking and domestic water, without any permit from the Chirakkara Grama Panchayat. Ext.P3 report of the Medical Officer confirmed the sub-7.5-metre distance and the risk of contamination of the well, and the Panchayat's statement admitted the violation and that demolition notices issued to respondents 4 and 5 had gone uncomplied with, those respondents awaiting the writ outcome. Holding that pendency of the writ petition was no reason for respondents 1 and 2 to defer action, the Court directed them to ensure removal of the cesspool constructed in violation of the relevant rules without any delay, at the outer limit within one month from receipt of a copy of the judgment, with notice to respondents 4 and 5.

¶1

W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2022

¶2

¶3

2025:KER:28178

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

WP(C) NO. 23367 OF 2022

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

C INDIRA DEVI,AGED 73 YEARS
W/O LATE BALAKRISHNAN ,PARANKIMAMVILA KOONAYIL
CHERRY, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, NEDUNGOLAM PO, KOLLAM-691
334

¶11

BY ADV M.RAJESH

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE CHIRAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHIRAKKARA PO, KOLLAM-691 578

¶14

2 THE SECRETARY CHIRAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH ,CHIRAKKARA PO, KOLLAM-691 578

¶15

3 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER , 2ND FLOOR, KOLLAM CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION PO, KOLLAM-691 013

¶16

4 AMBIKA VALSALAN ,AGED 55 YEARS ,W/O VALSALAN ANULALAYAM (MULAMOOTTIL VEEDU) NEDUNGOLAM PO KOLLAM (DIST)- 691 334

¶17

5 VALSALAN,AGED 57 YEARS ,S/O KARUNAKARAN, ANULALAYAM (MULAMOOTTIL VEEDU) NEDUNGOLAM PO KOLLAM (DIST)- 691 334

¶18

BY ADV Sasith M R

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SC- V VENUGOPALAN NAIR,GP- NIMA JACOB

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶22

01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2022

¶24

¶25

2025:KER:28178

¶26

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2022

¶28

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2025

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate steps to remove the illegally constructed cesspool in the property of respondents 4 and 5.

¶31

It is contended that petitioner is residing in 4 Ares of property situated in survey Nos.396/13-1 and 396/13-2 of Paravoor Village. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that respondents 4 and 5 have recently constructed a cesspool on the western side of their property very close to the existing well situated in the eastern side of the property of the petitioner, which is used for supply of water for human consumption and domestic purpose. It is contended that the said well is more than 50 years old. It is further contended that the distance between the existing well of the petitioner and the newly constructed cesspool in the property of respondents 4 and 5 is less than 7.5 metres. Thereupon Exts.P1 and P2 complaints were preferred. Alleging that no action has been taken that the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Ext.P3 report of the Medical Officer, the 3^rd respondent herein, it is specifically found that the

¶32

W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2022 3

¶33

2025:KER:28178

¶34

distance from the well to the cesspool constructed by respondents 4 and 5 is less than 7.5 metres and if the cesspool is allowed to continue there is every chance for contamination of the well.

¶35

A statement has been filed by respondents 1 and 2, the local authority, stating that in the enquiry conducted on the basis of the complaint preferred by the petitioner it was found that respondents 4 and 5 have constructed a cesspool in their property within the prohibited distance from the well and without obtaining any permit from the 1^st respondent Panchayat and accordingly notice was issued to the respondents 4 and 5 to demolish the said cesspool. It is also stated that though demolition notices were issued, no steps were taken by respondents 4 and 5 to comply with the said direction and since the writ petition is pending consideration, respondents 4 and 5 are waiting for the outcome of the same so as to further proceed with the matter.

¶36

After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the pendency of the writ petition should not have been a reason for respondents 1 and 2 to take further action for removal of the cesspool constructed by respondents 4 and 5 which is within the prohibited distance and constructed without obtaining any permit from the 1^st respondent Panchayat. Whatever that be, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to see that the cesspool constructed by respondents 4 and 5 in violation of the relevant rules is

¶37

W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2022 4

¶38

2025:KER:28178

¶39

removed without any delay, at any rate within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment with notice to

¶40

respondents 4 and 5.

¶41

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM

JUDGE

cks

W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2022

¶47

¶48

2025:KER:28178

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23367/2022

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
1.6.2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE SECRETARY, CHIRAKKARA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH

¶52

Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
1.6.2022 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
KOLLAM

¶53

Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
177/2024 DATED 20.06.2024 OF THE
MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE,
CHITHARA ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT

C Indira Devi v. the Chirakkara Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Indira Devi v. the Chirakkara Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eco-Bio Fertilizer Pvt. Ltd, Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Thomas Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

Sajeevan C.K., Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Muralidharan Nair Vs National Highway Authority of India

P. C. Prasad Vs the Station House Officer

The Neyyattinkara Primary Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. No.T 417 Vs State of Kerala