IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 6143 of 2007(F) ------------------------- CMA.21/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: 3RD APPELLANT: ----------------------------------------------- K.N.RETNAVALLY, D/O. KUNHIKANNAN, PUTHUKUDY HOUSE, CHELORA AMSOM, KAPPAD DESOM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) SMT.ELIZABETH ALEXANDER KURIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS 1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY PROJECT DIVISION, KANNUR, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY PROJECT DIVISION, THANA, KANNUR. 2. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REP. BY SUPDT. ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KANNUR. 3. THE CHELORA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CHELORA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. EDAKKAD BLOCK PANCHAYATH, REP. BY SECRETARY, EDAKKAD, KANNUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 6. MELKANDI CHANDRAN, S/O. KELAN, RESIDING NEAR KAPPATTUKAVU, CHELORA AMSOM, KAPPAD DESOM, KANNUR. Kss ..2/- ....2.... 7. MANGALA PRAKASAN, S/O. KUNHIKANNAN, PUTHUKUDY HOUSE, CHELORA AMSOM, KAPPAD DESOM, KANNUR. 8. ABDUL KHADER, S/O. ABDUREHIMAN, NARACHAN VEETTIL HOUSE, CHELORA AMSOM, KAPPAD AMSOM, KANNUR. 9. K.K.SHYAMALA, W/O. GOVINDAN, PUTHUKUDY HOUSE, CHELORA AMSOM, KAPPAD DESOM, KANNUR TALUK. 10. POOCHALI VIJAYAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, NARAYANI NIVAS, CHELORA AMSOM, VALANGARA DESOM, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY SMT.AMBIKA DEVI,SC,KWA BY ADV. SRI.SUDHEESH THAROL SRI.P.P.PRADEEPAN R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6143/2007 F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.240/06 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF I.A.NO. 1433/06 IN O.S.240/06. EXT.P3: COPY OF COUNTER IN THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 31/08/2006 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/01/2007 IN CMA 21/06 ON THE FILES OF SUB COURT, THALASSERY. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.6143 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 7th day of April 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the judgment of the Sub Court, Thalassery in C.M.A.No.21 of 2006 whereby it confirmed the order of the Addl.Munsiff, Kannur in I.A.No.1433 of 2006 in O.S.No.240 of 2006. The suit is against the Panchayat, the Government and the Water Authority against the digging of a well and pumping out water which according to the plaintiffs would result in serious scarcity of water for the plaintiffs who are the inhabitants in and around. It is submitted that the Central Government has sanctioned an amount of Rs.49 lakhs for the purpose of Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme. The courts below found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any injunction and at this stage I also do not propose to interfere with the decision rendered by the courts below. But, I feel that a direction be given to the trial court to expedite the trial and consider the materials produced by both the parties and if it is found that the implementation of the project proposed by the Water Authority will affect or cause difficulties to the inhabitants of the locality on the basis of CRPs 1918 & 1919/2003 -:2:- scientific materials, certainly, the court can impose restriction in pumping out water, i.e. quantity. The court can also find out any devise whereby the right of the plaintiffs can be protected if there is real derth of water and if they are really affected by the project. It has also to be remembered that water scarcity is a menacing problem and the authorities at all levels should implement the Central project, but at the same time without causing material difficulty to the inhabitants of the locality. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. The trial court is directed to dispose of the matter untrammelled by the observations contained on its own order and the appeal. It shall consider the observations made by me in this judgment and try for an expeditious disposal of the matter at any rate, within 3 months from the reopening of the court. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-