IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 W.A.No.1734 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN RP.520/2008 IN WP(C).33685 OF 2007 DATED 08/07/2008 & JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.33685 OF 2007 DATED 8.4.2008. .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER:- ---------------------------------------- M.MOHANALAKSHMI, W/O.RAJKUMAR, RAJ BHAVAN (MANGATTU HOUSE), KUNDAYITHODE, P.O.KOLATHARA, CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, RAJKUMAR, RAJ BHAVAN (MANGATTU HOUSE), KUNDAYITHODE, P.O.KOLATHARA, CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------- 1. CHERUVANNUR NALLALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.KOLATHARA, CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE - 673 027. 2. P.DIVAKARAN, S/O.AYAPPAN, KUTTANKULANGARA, SASTHAPURI HOUSE, KUNDAYITHODE, P.O.KOLATHARA, CHERUVANNUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE -27. 3. OMBUDSMAN, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, TRIVANDRUM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS & SRI.SRINATH GIRISH. R2 BY ADV.SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1734 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant, who owns 5.3 cents of land within the limits of Cheruvannur Nallalam Grama Panchayat, had constructed a two-storeyed building with four residential units therein, after obtaining permit and licence from the local statutory body. 2. It appears, respondent No.2 herein had raised some objection with regard to a leach pit admittedly constructed by the appellant behind the residential complex. The complaint was that the leach pit was causing pollution. Ultimately, at the intervention of the Panchayat, the appellant was constrained to construct another leach pit in front of the complex. In other words, the appellant was restrained from using the old leach pit constructed at the backside of the residential complex. But, according to respondent No.2, the nuisance still persisted, since the appellant did not demolish the old leach pit. The Panchayat again intervened and issued Exhibit P4 order to demolish the old leach pit. The said order was challenged by the appellant in the writ petition. 3. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the following directions: “(i) The first respondent Panchayat in W.P.(C). No.33685 of 2007 will conduct further inspection of the leach W.A.No.1734 of 2008 - 2 - pit claimed to have been constructed by the petitioner in W.P. (C).No.33685 of 2007 on the front side of his building in the presence of the petitioners in both the cases. (ii) The Panchayat will also ensure during the said inspection that the leach pit constructed by the petitioner which was objected to by the petitioner in W.P.(C).8977/2008 has been closed down by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.33685/2007. (iii) If the inspection reveals that the leach pit constructed on the front side of the building of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.33685/2007 is in accordance with the Rules, the Panchayat will grant permission to the petitioner for operating the said leach pit. (iv) The Panchayat will ensure compliance with the above directions at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment”. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Clause (ii) of the above directions will cause serious prejudice and hardship to the appellant, inasmuch as she had been using the old leach pit at the backside of the complex as a waste water pit. He submits that due to paucity of space, the residents of the residential units may find it difficult to dispose of the waste water. 5. We are unable to agree with the above argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant cannot retain the leach pit on the backside of the building. Whether she had been using the old leach pit as waste water pit or for some other purpose is not a W.A.No.1734 of 2008 - 3 - matter which calls for our consideration in this jurisdiction. The appellant has to necessarily comply with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in this Writ Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge