IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30601 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M/S. ASSET HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.4, ANCHORAGE PALLIYIL LANE, KOCHI-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. ANIL K. VARMA. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.SUMESH KUMAR N.C. RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), ERNAKULAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHAKKAMBALAM. 5. THE SENNIOR TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM. 6. THE KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. MR. PETER JOSEPH, S/O. OUSEPH, MOLATH HOUSE, PAZHANGANAD KARA, MANKKAKADAV. ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R7 SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI FOR R7 SRI.T.R.SADEESAN FOR R7 SRI.M.V.JOY FOR R6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.K.RAVIKUMAR, FOR R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 30601 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in construction activities. It is aggrieved by Ext.P12 order passed by the Deputy Collector requiring the petitioner to stop the construction activities which it carries on now in a land situated in Kizhakkambalam area. I do not propose to undertake a detailed appraisal of the rival contentions of the petitioner on one hand and the contesting respondent, 7th respondent, on the other. It is noted that on complaint filed by the 7th respondent, the Deputy Collector has issued certain directions as contained in Ext.P12. It seems that the action of the Deputy Collector was to see that the vibration caused by the piling activities carried on by the petitioner in the land in question does not cause any disturbance to the neighbours including the 7th respondent. Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P12. 2. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the 7th respondent and also the report filed by the Chief Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board who has now been sought to be impleaded, it is seen W.P.C.No. 30601 OF 2008 -:2:- that use of hammer seems to be causing vibration. The Chief Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board has filed a report pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. The operative portion of the report reads as follows: “1. Inspection was conducted by the Board Officers on 28.10.08 and 29.10.08 and supervised the piling work at the construction site of Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd., Manakkakadavu as per the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 21.10.2008. 2. It is observed that the piling works carried out by the petitioner is not the conventional hammer pilling wherein precast piles are driven to the soil using hammer. The operations are 'bored cast in situ pile with direct mud circulation(DMC)', wherein holes are made in the ground and then filling it with concrete. 3. The holes are made in the ground by ramming with a chisel having approximate 620 Kilogram Weight by dropping from 75 cm to 100 cm height and mud is circulated to the bore simultaneously for replacing the slurry from the bore pit. This is the direct mud circulation method of boring. Even though there is no direct hammering is done in cast in situ bored piles as in the precast piles, there are chances of causing vibration in the ground due to the falling of the heavy chisel to the bore pit from 1 meter height. 4. During the time of inspection the petitioner completed boring of one complete pile having 8 m depth from ground level to rock within 4 hours. The vibration experienced was less. The complainants W.P.C.No. 30601 OF 2008 -:3:- were present at the site and it was reported that the vibration effects were very less at the time of trial operation when compared to their usual piling operation. 5. The soil being latrite, there are chances for vibrations during the piling operations practised by the petitioner using direct mud circulation system. The vibration can be controlled by the following measures 1. Number of pile at a time may be limited to one. 2. Height of fall of the chisel may be controlled to less than 50 cm. 3. Weight of chisel may be reduced. 6. Screw piling/hydraulic auger piling are also employed in multi-story structure constructions which is considered as safter technology in vibration sensitive sites. But it is reported that these type of pilings are advisable only for soft soil.” 3. Mr.Devan Ramachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that screw piling or hydraulic auger piling which is now employed in multistoried constructions may not be suitably done in certain kinds of land. He further submits that indisputably hydraulic piling is much more expensive and the petitioner is now using the cast in situ pile with Direct Mud Circulation System. Mr.Jaju Babu, learned counsel for the 7th respondent also confirms that if the petitioner deploys hydraulic piling then it would not be in any manner W.P.C.No. 30601 OF 2008 -:4:- objectionable to the 7th respondent. 4. In the circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner apparently with a view to see that the controversy is set at rest and on instructions submits that the petitioner will use only hydraulic piling method for the construction in question. The submission is recorded. In these circumstances, I am of the view that there does not seem to be any tangible purpose in the Deputy Collector further proceeding with the matter as proposed in Ext.P12, since the substantial objection raised by the 7th respondent has now been proposed to be resolved by the petitioner in the manner above mentioned, I am of the view that the order, Ext.P12, should not be permitted to govern the parties anymore . 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P12. But it is made clear that the petitioner shall employ only hydraulic piling in the land in question. It is open to the 7th respondent to make a request to the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board to verify whether the petitioner is complying with the above condition and the petitioner shall not object to any inspection by the Environmental Engineer at any point of time to W.P.C.No. 30601 OF 2008 -:5:- verify this aspect. It is further made clear that assessment of any damage allegedly caused hitherto can be resorted to by the 7th respondent by taking recourse to any other course open to him in law. In the result, it will be open to the petitioner to commence the construction activities in the property by employing hydraulic piling method. (V. GIRI, JUDGE) ttb W.P.C.No. 30601 OF 2008 -:6:-