IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9820 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: 1. T.M.ABDULLA KUNHI, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, R/AT PALACHIYADUKKAM, P.O.PARAVANADUKKAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL HAMEED, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, R/AT PALACHIYADUKKAM, P.O.PARAVANADUKKAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. T.CHIRUDA, W/O.CHIRUKANDAN, R/AT PALACHIYADUKKAM, P.O.PARAVANADUKKAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. FATHIMATH NAZEEMA, W/O.MOHAMMED SADIQUE, R/AT PALACHIYADUKKAM, P.O.PARAVANADUKKAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DIST. 2. MANIKANDAN, S/O.PAKKEERAN @ KRISHNAN, R/AT PALACHIYADUKKAM, P.O.PARAVANADUKKAM, KASARAGOD DIST. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) 9820/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 25.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE KERALA GROUND WATER AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 26.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE KERALA GROUND WATER AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 26.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE KERALA GROUND WATER AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED 265.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE KERALA GROUND WATER AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.3.2009 BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. 26863/2006 BY THIS COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SAMITHY. EXT.PR2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE COLLECTOR. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) NO. 9820 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioners seek for police protection for their life and property for digging a bore well in their own property, alleging illegal interference by the party respondents. Complaints made to the police being ineffective, they approached this Court for appropriate direction. 2. Petitioners have obtained necessary licence from the Geologist, the statutory authority for granting licence, for digging a bore well and when they started the work there was obstruction by the neighbouring owners, though permit was granted after due enquiry. On 7th of April, 2009, we directed the District Collector to submit a factual report regarding as to whether the digging of the bore well by the petitioners in their property would in any way result in draining of water from the nearby wells. The District Collector has submitted a report stating that the extrction of water from the confined/semi confined aquifers through bore wells will not WP(C) 9820/2009 :2: interfere with the adjoining open wells which tap the unconfined aquifers only. But bore wells tapping the same aquifer (confined/semi confined) may interfere other bore wells if they are within the area of "Cone of depression of the other well, mutually while pumping. The average depth of bore wells constructed in this area is between 70 to 80 m. below ground level. Hence the same depth is required and recommended for the new bore wells also. It is suggested that restriction on withdrawal of water from the bore well can be made by installing flow water meter . The maximum quantity of 1000 ltr. per family can be drawn from each well per day which can be regulated using flow meter and the same is not going to affect the other wells in the locality. 3. Admittedly, the construction of the bore well is in the property belonging to the petitioners and they have already obtained necessary licence. This is not a case of any property dispute. If so, there cannot be any physical obstruction caused . If any of the party respondent apprehend infringement of any of their civil right or adversely affecting their right to live, their remedy is to approach the civil court for redressing their grievance. So long as the digging of a bore well as per the permit issued is WP(C) 9820/2009 :3: not interdicted by any court of law or by any statutory authority, there is no reason as to how anybody could be allowed to take law into his own hands and cause physical obstruction. 4. In the circumstances, petitioners are entitled for protection as sought for. However, digging of the bore well beyond 80 ms. cannot be permitted. Further, some restrictions should be made regarding the quantity of water used . In the circumstances, copy of the report shall be forwarded to the Geologist for imposing necessary restrictions as suggested by the District Collector, whereupon the petitioners could proceed to dig the bore well and use the bore well in the manner as directed by the Geologist in the order. The Geologist shall pass appropriate orders incorporating the conditions as aforesaid, within a period of three weeks from today. He may also inspect the property to ensure that the conditions are complied with. If there is any obstruction to the construction of the bore well and user of the same subject to such restrictions and conditions imposed by the Geologist by anybody, the same shall be removed and give necessary protection. If, either of the party has a better right, it is open to them to approach the civil court for redressing their grievance and the civil court will decide the WP(C) 9820/2009 :4: matter untrammelled by this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-