IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29419 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RUGMINI SASIDHARAN, NALINAM, 149, KAVADIPURAM NAGAR,ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691002. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM-691008. 4. VAIDYA GARDENS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, VAIDYA GARDENS, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM-691002. SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS – SC SMT. THULASIBHAI - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.29419 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a resident of Kavadipuram Nagar in Kollam adjacent to an Apartment Complex of which the 4th respondent is the Residents Association. There is a drainage passing through the petitioner's property and the Apartment Complex. Earlier on the ground that filth and sewage coming out of the drainage pollutes the adjacent properties, the 4th respondent was directed to close the drainage. Now the petitioner has been issued with Ext.P8 notice directing her to open the drainage and to allow flow of water through the drainage. Because of these conflicting directions, the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 objections to Ext.P8. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P8 notice. 2. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, I am of opinion that the 1st respondent has to take a final decision in the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent to find a solution for the problem, which arises from alleged conflicting orders of the 1st W.P.(c)No.29419/08 2 respondent. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 objections filed by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent as also the 3rd respondent and pass a final order in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till final orders are thus passed, the petitioner shall not be required to implement the direction in Ext.P8 notice. The petitioner shall forward a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition to the 1st respondent for compliance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.29419/08 3