IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 29630 of 2004(B) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. RAVINDRAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 40, RESIDING AT KALAMKULATHU (H), KANGARAPADY. 2. P.B.SASIDHARAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 40, RESIDING AT KALAMKULATHU (H), KANGARAPADY. 3. VENUGOPAL, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 38, RESIDING AT KALAMKULATHU (H), KANGARAPADY. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.ELDHO RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY. 2. THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP. BY ITS SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MEDICAL COLLEGE, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, KALAMASSERY. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPT. OF HEALTH, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.THULASY BHAI, SC, KSPCB SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA - R4 SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC, PCB SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR, SC, P.C.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 29630/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 SERIES - A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. EXT.P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION DATED 25.9.2004. RESPONDENTS' EXTS. EXT.R1(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2004. EXT.R3(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE TEST REPORT ISSUED BY THE ENVIROCHEM LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED. EXT.R3(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.8.2003 FORWARDING THE APPLICATION TO THE PLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(c) – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(d) - TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SHOWING THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT ESTABLISHED IN THE COLLEGE. EXT.R3(e) – ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES. EXT. PRODUCED ALONG WITH I.A.1663/2005: EXT.R3(f) - TRUE COPY OF CONSENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT TO DISCHARGE TRADE EFFLUENT/SEWAGE INTO LAND FOR IRRIGATION/PERCOLATION. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 29630 OF 2004-B ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner are residents of Kangarapady. Their residential buildings are very close to the sewage treatment plant established by the 3rd respondent Medical College. Feeling aggrieved by the foul smell emanating from the said sewage treatment plant, the petitioners moved various authorities, including the Pollution Control Board. Ext.P2 is the representation filed by them before the Pollution Control Board, Kalamassery Municipality and Ernakulam District Collector. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs: “(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, compelling the 2nd respondent to conduct an inspection in the southern extremity of the compound of the 3rd respondent wherein the septic tanks are kept open and to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent in the matter of causing pollution by the 3rd respondent. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, compelling the 3rd respondent to close down the 3rd respondent institution till the pollution caused by open toilet outlets is rectified. (c ) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, WPC 29630/04 2 order or direction compelling the respondents 1 and 2 to take decision on Exhibit P2 representation within a time limit stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.” This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 8.10.2004, directed the 2nd respondent Pollution Control Board to cause an inspection of the premises of the 3rd respondent College with notice to the petitioners and the College. In obedience to the said direction, the Chief Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board visited the site on 28.10.2004 and filed a report, pointing out various inadequacies in the establishment and functioning of the sewage treatment plant, which will cause pollution in the neighbourhood. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioners and claiming that the sewage treatment plant is run properly. It has also filed an objection to the report of the Chief Environmental Engineer of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board mentioned above. The 3rd respondent has also produced Ext.R3 (f) consent issued in 2005 by the Pollution Control Board for the operation of the sewage treatment plant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the WPC 29630/04 3 matters reported by the Chief Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board are remaining as such even now and the functioning of the sewage treatment plant is causing pollution in the area. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent College submitted that the said claim cannot be correct, in view of Ext.R3(f) consent given by the Pollution Control Board for the operation of the sewage treatment plant. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board, as also the learned standing counsel for the Municipality. The Municipality had earlier issued a notice to the College to re-locate one of the tanks, which is part of the sewage treatment plant, on the ground that the same is causing pollution in the area. 5. Having regard to the facts of the case, I feel that the Pollution Control Board should be asked to inspect the sewage treatment plant of the 3rd respondent College and direct the College to take remedial action, if any shortcomings are found in the establishment or running of it. Accordingly, the Senior Environmental Engineer of the 2nd respondent Pollution Control Board is directed to visit the sewage treatment plant of the 3rd respondent with notice to the petitioners and WPC 29630/04 4 the 3rd respondent within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. If any pollution or possibility of pollution is found by the operation of the sewage treatment plant, the Senior Environmental Engineer shall forthwith issue appropriate directions in writing to the 3rd respondent with copy to the petitioners. The remedial actions suggested by the Pollution Control Board shall be implemented without fail by the 3rd respondent within the time limit stipulated by the said officer. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. 19th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/