IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30462 of 2011(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, MOTHAYIL HOUSE, ANNALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN-680 732. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN-680 732. 3. SURESH, EDATHADAN HOUSE, ANNALLOORE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 307. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30462 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DT.28/04/11. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF the CERTIFICATE DT.02/05/11 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT. EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF the COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT.05/05/11. EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT.05/11/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.30462 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The petitioner complains that the 3rd respondent is without any justifiable cause obstructing the construction of a bore well by him in his property which has roughly an extent of 95 cents. According to the petitioner, construction of a bore well is absolutely necessary for the agricultural operations that he is carrying on in his property. According to him, the District Officer of the Ground Water Department has certified in Ext.P2 that bore well construction using pump sets having power below 3 HP do not require any registration from the Ground Water Authority. The petitioner submits that he intends to use only motor having power below 3 HP. The 3rd respondent has not filed any counter W. P. C. No.30462 of 2011 -2- affidavit. But the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the 3rd respondent and the entire people of the locality have filed a mass petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur protesting against the proposed bore well construction by the petitioner. If the bore well is allowed to be constructed there will be a drought situation in the area. Counsel requested that the RDO be impleaded suo motu. 2. Sri.M.K.Aboobacker, the learned senior Government Pleader submitted that owners of several plots in the area have bore wells. The petitioner has a well in his property but since the water in that well is not sufficient for irrigating his property the petitioner is thinking in terms of having a bore well. 3. Sri.V.M.Krishnakumar, the learned counsel submitted that the 3rd respondent has an axe to grind against the W. P. C. No.30462 of 2011 -3- petitioner. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition against the 3rd respondent complaining that the 3rd respondent's chip making unit is generating lots of pollution. 4. Having considered the pleadings in the Writ Petition and the various materials placed on record and the submissions addressed before us by various counsel including the senior Government Pleader, we are of the view that the 3rd respondent has no right to object or obstruct the construction of bore well by the petitioner upon his property so long as the petitioner uses a motor with power less than 3 HP. Under the above circumstances, we dispose of the Writ Petition directing the 2nd respondent to afford necessary protection to the petitioner in the matter of construction of bore well as well as in the matter of installing a motor attached to the bore well provided the motor has power of less than 3 HP only. We make it clear that if in the W. P. C. No.30462 of 2011 -4- meanwhile, the 3rd respondent produces any prohibitory order against the petitioner restraining digging of the bore well for installation of the motor issued by any competent authority, the 2nd respondent shall immediately withdraw the protection. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL JUDGE kns/- //True Copy// P. A. TO JUDGE