IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13840 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.N.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, 62 YEARS, AMBADI, PIOUS MOUNT P.O., MONIPPILLY, MEENCHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM SMT.MERRY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURAVILANGADU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. GOPALAKRISHNAN @ PRAKASH VADAKKEL, KULANGARA MELPURAM, PIOUS MOUNT P.O., MONIPPILLY, MEENCHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM. 4. GIJI SALEENDARAN, THURUTHIYIL, PIOUS MOUNT P.O., MONIPPILLY, MEENCHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM. 5. DIVAKARAN NAIR, THURUTHIYIL, PIOUS MOUNT P.O., MONIPPILLY, MEENCHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM. 6. RAGHUNATHAN NAIR, MUNDATHANATHU, PIOUS MOUNT P.O., MONIPPILLY, MEENCHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM. 7. HARIDAS, PULIKKAYAIL, PIOUS MOUNT P.O., MONIPPILLY, MEENCHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM. 8. SAROJINI HARIDAS, PULIKKAYAIL, PIOUS MOUNT P.O., MONIPPILLY, MEENCHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM. 9. INDIRA RAGHUNATHAN NAIR, MUNDATHANATHU, PIOUS MOUNT P.O., MONIPPILLY, MEENCHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.13840 OF 2009 EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A3-826/09 DT. 3.4.2009\ OF THE UZHAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.GW1/A/143/09 DATED 25.4.2009 OF THE DISTRICT GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P3 & P3(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SANCTION BEARING NO. A3-1033/09 DATED 15.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT AND THE UNDERTAKING DATED 15.5.2009. EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.5.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13840 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The allegation in the writ petition is that despite licence having obtained both from the Panchayat as well as from the Ground Water Authority for digging a bore well for domestic purposes by the petitioner, party respondents 3 to 9 are causing obstruction. It is submitted that despite complaints being made to the police, they are not taking any action. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. Though notice was served on respondents 3 to 9, none of them entered apperance to controvert the allegations raised in the writ petition. W.P.(C) No.13840 of 2009 2 3. A perusal of the exhibits produced in the case would show that Ground Water Authority has opined that the place where the bore well is to be dug by the petitioner is lying in a low level area, and therefore, it will not in no way affect the open well of the sixth respondent. However, the Panchayat considered this aspect of the matter and subject to certain undertaking given by the petitioner, licence is granted, as evidenced by Ext.P3. Ext.P3(a) is the undertaking given by the petitioner. So long as the petitioner, after digging the well, is complying the conditions undertaken by him, there cannot be any objection, as of now. If, after digging the well, the petitioner is violating any of the conditions undertaken by him, certainly it is open to the authorities to close the well or to take other action as may be deemed appropriate in the facts situation. However, as at present, it is too pre-mature to say whether the conditions in Ext.P3 will be complied with or not, since that can be done only after digging the bore well. Hence, there cannot be any objection for the digging of the bore well in terms of the conditions laid down by the authorities. So long as there is no order interdicting W.P.(C) No.13840 of 2009 3 the petitioner from further construction of bore well by any statutory authorities or by any Court of Law, the objection raised by other respondents causing physical obstruction cannot be permitted. 4. In such circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, to provide necessary protection for digging of thebore well strictly in accordance with the licence issued. It is made clear that this will not stand in the way of respondents to take re-course to any civil court, if they are other wise aggrieved. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.