IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11041 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- SHERLY RAJAN, AGED 40, W/O.C.D.RAJAN, RESIDING AT CHATHEN CHIRAPPATTU HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.JAYACHANDRAN C. MR.PARTHASARATHY MR.K.R.GANESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER (RURAL), MULANTHURUTHY BLOCK AND P.H. CENTRE, KEECHERRY, MULANTHURUTHY,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-20- REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION,MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM. 5. AJIMON AGED ABOUT 30,S/O.THOMMEN, THAVOORATH HOUSE, KARIKODE, MULANTHURUTHY,ERNAKULAM. 6. VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 50, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,THACHANPURATH HOUSE, KARIKODE, MULANTHURUTHY,ERNAKULAM. R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R1 BY ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR R5 BY ADV. MR.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA, MR.KRISHNA PRASAD. S . R3 BY ADV. MR.M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 11041/2008-M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31/12/2007 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 09/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE WATER ANALYSIS REPORT DATED 21/01/2008 ISSUED BY REGIONAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY , ERNAKULAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 01/02/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/02/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13/05/2009 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT. EXT.R5(b): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 21/02/2008. EXT.R5(c): COPY OF THE LETTER SENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENT OFFICER DATED 07/03/2008. EXT.R5(d): COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE BEARING CONSENT NO.PCB/RO- EKM/H/ICO-1/F/09 DATED 21/02/2009. EXT.R5(e): COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23/05/2009. EXT.R5(f): COPY OF THE LICENCE BEARING NUMBER A2-157/09-10 DATED 23/05/2009 ISUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R5(g): COPY OF THE SANITARY FITNESS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29/05/2009. EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/RO-ERK/COMP 68/2008 DATED 28/02/2008. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.P.C.B./RO-ERK/H/ERK/IACO-25/08 DATED 07/03/2008. EXT.R3(c): COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE NO.PCB/RO-ERK/H/ICO-1/F/09 DATED 21/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.11041 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 31.3.2008 alleging that the 5th respondent is carrying out certain activities in connection with a catering centre without any due licence from the Panchayat or clearance of the Pollution Control Board and the Health department. The petitioner pointed out that in spite of complaints, due action did not necessarily follow from the statutory authorities. Ext.P3 is the water analysis report which shows the pollution in the well of the petitioner. The Panchayat had immediately issued a stop memo. Another stop memo was issued by the Health Department. The uncontroverted statement of the Panchayat is that inspection conducted by it shows that the catering unit had contaminated the water in the well of the petitioner making it unfit for drinking and for other purposes. On 21.2.2008, a meeting was held by the Panchayat authorities to find out ways and means for resolving the issue. Even by the 5th respondent's own WPC.11041/09 Page numbers showing, he was carrying on the activity without licence and with no prevention or controlling mechanism to arrest the pollution since he pleads that in the meeting on 21.2.2008, the petitioner had no objection to the housing of the business however, with the existence of an affluent treatment plant and necessary further steps for pollution control. The Pollution Control Board is also on record evidencing that it was after the institution of this writ petition that the consent to operate was issued, after carrying out the necessary rectifications and curative steps which were insisted on by it. 2.In the aforesaid circumstances, as on today, the 5th respondent has all necessary licenses and clearances of the competent statutory respondents. He will, therefore, be entitled to continue to operate the establishment strictly in terms of those licences and permits. But the materials clearly disclose that the petitioner was driven to move this Court invoking writ jurisdiction, under compelling circumstances, on her well water turning to be turbid beyond tolerable limits as a result of the polluting activity of the 5th respondent. Though, with WPC.11041/09 Page numbers the passage of time, the rectifications have been done, to prevent further contamination, the petitioner has essentially to be compensated for the expenditure incurred for this litigation and also for rectification of her well. The polluter has to pay. 3.In the result, this writ petition is ordered directing that respondents 5 and 6 will conduct the establishment in question only in strict adherence with the conditions of the permits and other directions, if any, that may be issued by the PCB, the Health Department and the Panchayat. The said authorities will also ensure by periodic inspection that the norms and conditions are strictly followed. Respondents 5 and 6 will pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, as costs of this litigation and restitutionary compensation. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.26/6.