IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 895 of 2009() -------------------- (D.B.P. 29 OF 2009 OF THIS COURT) REVIEW PETITIONER: PARTY NO.3 -------------------------------- THE SECRETARY, ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN RESPONDENTS: PARTY NOS.1,2,4,5 -------------------------------- 1. SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT, TRVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD AUDIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROAD DIVISION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 895/2009 IN D.B.P. 29/2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009. O R D E R Raman, J. This is an application for review of our order dated 13.8.2009 passed in D.B.P. 29 of 2009. Earlier, we had directed the Pollution Control Board to make inspection and to make suggestions for abating the pollution of water in Periyar River at Alwaye. At the time of consideration of the report of the Municipality, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality was also heard. It was thereafter, that the order was passed. However, in the present review petition, it is pointed out that some of the suggestions already made by the Pollution Control board has been implemented. So however, the few suggestions made by the Pollution Control Board are not feasible to be implemented by the Municipality. 2. One of the grounds raised in the review petition is that as per Annexure A notification, the Periyar River is not vested with the Municipality. We have gone through the said notification. We find that as per SRO 1034/93 issued under the Kerala Panchayat Act, with a view R.P. 895/2009 2 to exclude the rivers mentioned in the schedule thereunder which pass through more areas than the Panchayat area from vesting, the petitioner being a Municipality, is not governed by the said notification. As such this contention based on Annexure A fails. Ground No.C raised in the review petition is that the financial position of the Municipality, besides other constrains makes it unable to implement most of the suggestion of the Pollution Control Board. The financial constraints, if any, is not a reason for the non implementation of the suggestions since the suggestions are to abate nuisance and as such priority should be given to such expenditure. However, if the expenditure is to be incurred is a sizable amount, it is open to the Municipality, to do it in stages and we have not fixed any time limit within which the entire action is to be completed. However, we expect the Municipality to complete the same as early as possible and to file an action taken report to this Court. 3. If the Municipality feels that any other suggestion regarding the construction, as respect of which is within the purview of the PWD, is required, it is open to them to inform the same to the Pollution Control R.P. 895/2009 3 Board, whereupon that authority may issue notice to both sides and pass appropriate orders as to who is the ultimate authority to implement such suggestion. In case any of the parties is aggrieved by the decision, it is open to them to take recourse to the ordinary remedy available under law. The review petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-