IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5407 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.A.JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. AVARACHAN, KANDATHIL HOUSE, ANIKKADU.P.O., PALLICKATHODU, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.JOY GEORGE SMT.PRAICY JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.PIN-686 001 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.PIN-686 001 3. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, PALLICKATHODU, KOTTAYAM DIST.PIN-686 506 4. THE SECRETARY, PALLIKATHODU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLICKATHODU, KOTTAYAM DIST.PIN-686 513 5. MR.SEBASTIAN KURIAKOSE, THAZHAKKAL HOUSE ELAMPALLY, THE PROPRIETOR THAZHAKKAL INDUSTRIES ELAMPALLY, ANIKKADU.P.O., PALLICKATHODU, KOTTAYAM DIST.PIN-686 503 R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHAN R5 BY ADV.SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.5407/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE LICENSE IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.120511/10-11 DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY. P5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONER. P7 COPY OF THE LAB REPORT AFTER TAKING SAMPLE P8 COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R5(A) COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANIKKADU TO THE TALUK OFFICE. R5(B) COPY OF THE PANCHAYATH LICENSE ISSUED TO MY INDUSTRY DATED 02/09/2002 BY THE PALLICKALTHODU GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R5(C) COPY OF THE PANCHAYATH LICENSE DATED 28/09/2010 VALID UPTO 31/03/2011 ISSUED BY THE PALLICKALTHODU GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. R5(D) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, PALLICKALTHODU DATED 28/02/2011 WITH REGARD TO THE DISMANTLING OF LT-IV CONNECTION WITH CONSUMER NO.3494. R5(E) COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 17/12/2010 BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLICKALTHODU. R5(F) COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO EXHIBIT P8 DATED 04/02/2011. R5(G) COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 04/02/2011 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE S.M.SETHURAJ TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R5(H) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 5407 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 7th day of April , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : i. Issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to stop the functioning of the factory viz. Thazhakkal Industries owned by the 5th respondent forthwith in the light of Ext. P7 chemical examination report. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to implement Ext. P8 stop memo forthwith without any further delay and to take necessary penal action for the functioning of the factory ever after the issuance of the stop memo. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary action for the offences committed by the 5th respondent for obstructing the natural flow of water and also committing mischief for obtaining Ext.P2 licences. iv. To issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel Ext. P2 licence forthwith since the 5th respondent violated the license conditions and also for the reason for ignoring stop memo. v. To issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate coercive steps to stop the functions of the factory. vi. Issue such other reliefs that may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice. W.P. (C) No. 5407 of 2011 : 2 : 2. The 5th respondent on receipt of the notice entered appearance and filed counter affidavit disputing the facts and figures projected in the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent No. 5 is making use of contaminated water for manufacturing soda and other beverages intended to be supplied at Sabarimala and that, despite passing Ext. P8 'stop memo' by the concerned Panchayath, the said respondent is still pursuing such exercise, which is quite detrimental to the health and lives of the general public and hence is sought to be intercepted. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, on the basis of the instructions received, submits that, 5th respondent is reportedly making use of contaminated water. Reliance is sought to be placed on Ext. P7 and according to the 3rd respondent, it was pursuant to Ext. P7, that Ext. P8 stop memo was issued by the Panchayath. 5. However, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that, after issuing Ext. P8 stop memo, Exts. R5(f) and (g) steps were pursued, based on which Ext. R5(h) order was issued by the Panchayath on 05.02.2011, wherein it has been clearly stipulated that a proper inspection would be conducted and if a clearance is obtained from the concerned authority, the Panchayath would reconsider the W.P. (C) No. 5407 of 2011 : 3 : matter. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that further proceedings were pursued accordingly; samples were taken and after analysis, a report has been obtained, wherein it is stated that there is no contamination, which fact is strongly rebutted from the part of the petitioner. The 5th respondent has assured and undertaken in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that, the said respondent is not running the unit after receipt of Ext. P8 'stop memo' and that the he will run the unit, only if a favourable report is received as to the satisfaction of the requirements and when the 4th respondent recalls Ext. P8 'stop memo' on the basis of such report. The contents of paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit are extracted below: 7. Based on Exts. R5(f) and R5 (g) the 4th respondent reconsidered the matter and issued an order to me stating that Ext. P8 was caused based on the report of the chemical analysis conducted at the Regional Analytical Laboratory at Ernakulam and after purifying the well water a further bacteriological and chemical analysis will be conducted and if the report obtained satisfactory, the 4th respondent will permit me to use the well water for using it in the industry and accordingly further permission will be granted to run the unit. A true copy of the order dated 05.02.2011 issued by the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent is produced herewith and may be marked as Ext. R5 (h). As already stated, I am not running the unit after receipt of Ext. P8. The samples were not taken by the authorities after Exhibit R5 (h). I had conducted purification of my well, the storage tank and all the taps in my W.P. (C) No. 5407 of 2011 : 4 : unit and now the same is free from all sorts of pollution. I had also informed the authorities to take samples based on Ext. R5 (h) and I will run mu unity if I receive an analysis report as satisfactory from the authorities and also when the 4th respondent recalls Ext. P8. The further averments contained in paragraph 5 that, I had obstructed the natural flow of water in the thodu and filthy water being used in the unit is absolutely baseless and hence denied. In the above circumstances, this Court records the submission and undertaking given by the 5th respondent in the counter affidavit as above and the matter is disposed of with liberty to the authorities concerned, to proceed with appropriate steps in accordance with law including as to the hindrance, if any caused by the 5th respondent with regard to the natural flow of water in the thodu. The 5th respondent shall operate the unit only subject to satisfaction of the specific requirements and on getting necessary clearance from the 4th respondent. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd