IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 1966 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ A.SHEEJA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.M.H.LATHEEF, GREEN AVENUE, KARAVARUM VILLAGE, KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.MOHAMED RASHEED SMTMIJI JOHN SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KARAVARUM GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARAVARUM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARAVARUM P.O. PIN: 695 605, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024. 3. K.S.THAJUDDHIN, S/O.M.ABDUL KASSIM, ARAFA HOSPITAL, KALLAMBALAM - 695 605. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. SHABNA THAJUDDHIN, W/O.THAJUDDHIN, ARAFA HOSPITAL, KALLAMBALAM - 695 605, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LEGY ABRAHAM SRI.C.N.SIVANKUTTY SMT.K.K.THULASY BHAI,SC,POLLUTION C.BOA SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.1966 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The Pollution Control Board has filed a statement. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for various parties including the standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board. In their statement, the Pollution Control Board has stated that during the inspection conducted by them on 13/03/2008, it was noticed that some of the instructions given to the petitioner by the Pollution Control Board earlier have been complied with. But it is also stated that the location of the septic tank and soak pit is to be shifted from the existing location so as to achieve 7m distance from the boundary of the petitioner's property. It is also stated that the soak pit should have concreted bottom, honey comb brick side wall or perforated ring side wall and with 45 cm thick sand envelope around it. The soak pit should have a minimum depth of 2.5 m. According to Sri.T.M.Abdul Latheef, counsel for the petitioner, it was only the claim of respondents 3 and 4 WPC.No.1966/08 2 that they have made arrangements for disposal of biomedical waste by IMAGE, an agency. Nothing is being done by the agency for the actual removal of the biomedical waste. Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board regarding shifting of the location of the septic tank and soak pit and the other directions regarding standards necessary for the soak are being complied with. Counsel for the petitioner submits that those directions are yet to be complied with. 2. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there is justification for issuing the following directions for disposing of the writ petition: Respondents 3 and 4 are directed to comply with all the directions already given to them by the Pollution Control Board as regards the septic tank and soak pit which are referred to in the Pollution Control Board's statement dated 28/03/2008 within a period of one month from today. They are also directed to ensure that the agency-IMAGE who have already entered into arrangement with them disposes of all the biomedical waste generated in the hospital without WPC.No.1966/08 3 giving any room for complaint including the petitioner. The second espondent will conduct an inspection of the hospital of respond nts 3 and 4 with notice to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 on 01 05/2008. Thereafter the second respondent will take up the applica ion submitted by respondents 3 and 4 for consent to operate the hospita and take a decision on that application after hearing the petitio er also. Further conduct of the hospital will be subject to the decision to be taken by the Pollution Control Board on the application for consent to operate. In other words, if respondents 3 and 4 are not successful in getting the consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board, they will be bound to close down the hospital. 3. It is conceded before me that the Panchayat has already issued stop memo/notice to respondents 3 and 4 on the allegation that unauthorised construction has been taken up. Sri.Legy Abraham, counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submits that respondents 3 and 4 have submitted reply to the stop memo/notice. Under these circumstances, there will be a direction to the Panchayat also to finalise the proceedings initiated as per the stop WPC.No.1966/08 4 memo/notice (Ext.P7) with notice to the petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 and thereby bring those proceedings to their logical culmination. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.1966/08 5