IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 1871 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19868/2006 DATED 14/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ ADDL.RESP.NO.7 -------------------------------------------- A.P.FAIZAL, AGED 39 YEARS, ADAMBAYIL HOUSE, EDAMULA P.O. KUTTIKKATTUKARA, 683 504, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.VINCENT PANIKULANGARA SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 & RESPONDENT NO. 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.K.MUHAMMED, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KOMU, PRESIDENT, EDAMULA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, KUTTIKKATTUKARA P.O., ELOOR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 683 504. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 4. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELOOR. 6. THE SECRETARY, ELOOR PANCHAYATH, ELOOR. 7. IBRAHIM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUNNY, RESIDING AT MUDAKATHIL PUTHAN PURAYIL VADAKODEKARA, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE. 8. K.L.FRANCIS, KUNNATHU HOUSE, EDAMULA P.O., KUTTIKKATTUKARA, 683 504, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MEERA FOR R2, R3 & R5 ADV. SRI.M.R.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC, PCB ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN ADV. S.CHANDRASEKARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.1871 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 31st October, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . This appeal is filed by the additional 7th respondent in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by a Residents Association contending that the 6th respondent in the writ petition is supplying water for domestic use without any purification. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Contention of the appellant who was the additional 7th respondent in the writ petition is that the activities of the 6th respondent is creating nuisance to the nearby residents. It is also contended that no proper licence was taken by him. We are of the view that when a writ petition is dismissed, the respondent cannot file a writ appeal especially on the grounds which were not raised by the writ petitioner. However, if any pollution or difficulties are caused, the petitioner is free to approach the statutory authorities like local Panchayat, pollution control board etc. for the grievances. If polluted water is supplied, they can approach the health authorities for appropriate remedies. Without prejudice to any other remedies available to the appellant, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE tks