IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 757 of 2008(E) --------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER / APPELLANT / 1st RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------- THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS / RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. G.S. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SECRETARY, SREE DHARMA SASTHRA KSHETRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI, REGL.NO.507/80(KERALA KSHETRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI, PANGODU UNIT) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P. GOPAKUMAR, SECRETARY, SREE BALA SUBRAMANIA KSHETRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI, REG. NO. 596/81 (KERALA KSHETRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI UNIT), EDAPPAZHANJI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10. 3. C.K. SIVANANDAN PILLAI, SECRETARY, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REG. NO. 1181/90, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, PANGODE, THIRUMALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-6. 4. VIJAYAKUMAR, SECRETARY, SRI CHITRA NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REG. NO.591/91, USHAS, PANGODE, THIRUMALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-6. 5. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, SECRETARY, PALOTTUKONAM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REG. NO. 249/90, EDAPAZHANJI, SASTHAMANGALAM.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-10. (CNTD...2) RP.No. 757 of 2008(E) -2- 6. S. SURENDRAN NAIR, SASTHA ARTS AND SPORTS CLUB, REG. NO. 889/91, PANGODE, THIRUMALA.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. 7. K. MOHANA CHANDRAN, SECRETARY, 683/87, ANASWARA ARTS AND SPORTS CLUB, REG. NO. 683/87, KARAVILA ROAD, THIRUMALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA SRI. GOPAKUMARAN NAIR FOR R1 TO 7 SRI.M.K.C.DAS STANDING COUNSEL FOR PCB THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2009, ALONGWITH R.P.NO.823 OF 2008 AND THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, Ag.CJ & K.T.SANKARAN, J. =========================== R.P.Nos.757 & 823 of 2008 in W.A.No.642 of 2001 =============================== Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. O R D E R Koshy, Ag.CJ. These review petitions are filed against the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.642 of 2001. Petitioners in the original petition are permanent residents of Edappazhanji-Pangodu, Thiruvananthapuram. They were consistently pleading for shifting of fish market from that thickly populated area. There is no dispute for the proposition that the fish market at Edapazhanji-Pangode is causing much inconvenience to the public as well as traffic block and therefore, as per Ext.P8, it was decided by the Corporation to shift the market from the present place. Ext.P8 representation is dated 3.1.1992. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge in the impugned judgment gave six months time from the date of judgment to implement the above resolution. Case was decided on 11.12.2000, after 8 years of the representation. Thereafter, eight years passed. No effective R.P.Nos.757 & 823 of 2008 2 steps were taken to implement the representation. No steps were taken for compulsory acquiring of alternate land. Report dated 6.9.2001 by STED, Government of Kerala, shows that urgent necessity for shifting the fish market from the thickly populated area. In that report, alternate sites were also shown. Apart from the above, those who want to purchase fish, cannot insist that it should always be in the centre of the city in the middle of the thickly populated area. The contention that large number of employees are working in the present area is not a ground for pollution and causing nuisance. The employees now employed in the market can be employed in the shifted area also. In 2001, an interim order was passed as follows: “Heard counsel on both sides. 2. It is the case of the Trivandrum City Corporation that a new modern wholesale fish market, in accordance with technical advice rendered by the Central Institute of Fisheries, is proposed to be constructed in place of the existing whole sale fish market. The Corporation submits that, when the new wholesale fish market comes up, the problems with regard to the environment pollution alleged in the Original petition would disappear as the water and effluents would be properly treated so as to render them innocuous. The problem with regard to noise pollution would also disappear since auctions R.P.Nos.757 & 823 of 2008 3 will be conducted within the premises of the compound wall of the fish market. According to the Corporation, the problem of parking of lorries would also be resolved, since there is an additional 39 cents of puramboke land adjacent to the present premises of the market which can be converted into a parking place for the lorries. Counsel for the Corporation states that this land is in their possession and under the Kerala Municipalities Act, they are entitled to this land. (emphasis applied) 3. Shut down of the market would mean unemployment of a number of headload workers and fisherfolks and others and would lead to sociological and law and order problems. We are not inclined to make a direction for shutting down the market without there being an alternate solution to the vexing issue. The solution propounded by the Corporation appears to be feasible and likely to take care of the problems posed in the Original Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that, even if the Corporation puts its plan into action, the problems faced would not disappear. That is yet to be seen. 4. In any event, we are of the view that, the Corporation should be given an opportunity to demonstrate its intentions. In order to enable the Corporation to demonstrate its bona fides in the matter, we direct that the order of the learned Single Judge under appeal shall stand stayed for a period of three months. The Corporation shall, in the meanwhile, be at liberty during to proceed ahead with its plan of action. We shall review the situation at the end of the period of three months, and if we are not satisfied that Corporation has made substantial progress, we might review continuation of the stay of the order of the learned Single Judge. 5. The Corporation is well advised to note that, if an the next date of hearing, we are satisfied that the Corporation has not taken any genuine substantial steps R.P.Nos.757 & 823 of 2008 4 to progress in the matter, no request would be entertained to grant further time, inasmuch as time is being given from today till the next date of hearing for making alternate plans, and, if necessary, even to shift the market if the alternate plan is not likely to materialise.(emphasis applied) The order under appeal is accordingly stayed for a period of three months from today.” 2. But that undertaking was also not implemented after seven years also. After considering the above the following order was passed in the judgment under review: “i) The writ appeal is rejected since it is devoid of any merit. ii) A direction is issued to the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram to implement the orders and directions issued by the learned Single Judge and also the interim direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.P.No.5564 of 2001 dated 26th September, 2001 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within an year's time from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order. iii) If for any reason, the Corporation is not in a position to shift the wholesale fish market after one year, the Corporation is restrained from running the wholesale fish market at Edappazhanji-Pangode after one year from the date of receipt of this Court's order.” (emphasis applied) 3. Thereafter also, it was not implemented. Contempt case was filed. Time extension petition was also filed and time R.P.Nos.757 & 823 of 2008 5 was granted. When the time was about to expire as per the judgment in the contempt case, this review petition was filed. It is also true that Government also promised to give necessary financial assistance. But similar undertakings given to the court earlier were not kept. The appellant was getting time from 1992 onwards without taking any effective steps. 17 years have passed. We see no ground to review the judgment and accordingly we dismiss the review petitions. J.B.KOSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. bkn/-