IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36467 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MR.SANIL THOMAS, PRESIDENT, SKYLINE RIVER VALLY VILLA OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, COLLECTORATE.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686002. 2. MRS.THOMAS LUKOSE CHAMAKALA, CHAMAKALA KIZHAKETHIL, KANPUZHA.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 602. 3. M/S.SKYLINE BUILDERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SKYLINE HOUSE, RAJAJI ROAD, COCHIN-682035. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.V.ABDUL AZEEZ, 6C, BELAIR APARTMENTS, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, COCHIN-682036. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.SUMESH KUMAR N.C. SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD KOTTAYAM. 4. MR.PRADEEP MENON, KARTHIKA, PUTHUPALLY ROAD, MUTTAMBALAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE VECTOR CONTROL RESEARCH UNIT, VILLA NO.5, SKYLINE RIVER VALLEY VILLAS, COLLECTORATE.P.O, KOTTAYAM. WPC NO.36467/2009 6. INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, P.O.BOX NO.4911, AUSARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 029. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R5 & 6 SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R1 SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP FOR R4 MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR PCB MR.SIBY MATHEW, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.36467 of 2009 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The 3 rd petitioner is a builder. They have developed a colony by name Skyline River Valley Villa with individual residential villas. Petitioners 1 & 2 are residents in the villas constructed by the 3 rd petitioner. The 4 th respondent, an owner of one of the villas, has leased out his villa to the 5 th respondent, which is stated to be an establishment working under the 6 th respondent. In the Villa taken on lease, the 5 th respondent has established a lab. The petitioner says that as a result of the functioning of the lab, pollution and health hazards are caused. They made Ext.P3 complaint to the Municipality, on which the Municipality called for the remarks of the District Medical Officer. Thereafter the Municipality issued Ext.P5 dated 13/03/2009 stating that there is neither any pollution nor any health hazards. Although statutory remedy of appeal was available against Ext.P5, by lapse of time, this remedy has become time barred. It is thereafter that this writ petition is filed against Ext.P5. WP(C) No.36467/2009 -2- 2. First of all, if by establishment of the lab in the Villa belonging to the 4th respondent, any rule of the Residents Association is violated, it is for the petitioner and the residents association to work out their remedies elsewhere and at any rate not in a writ petition before this Court. So far as the complaint regarding pollution and health hazards is concerned, having regard to the fact that Ext.P5 communication was issued by the Municipality examining the grievance in the light of the remarks of the District Medical Officer, and in the absence of any material to the contrary, I do not find any substance in the complaint as well. Therefore, this writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg