IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 25204 of 2007(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.C. MATHEW, KARIMBIL, NEAR KUTTUMUKHAM BRIDGE,KAVUMBAI DESOM, NEDIYARA AMSOM, SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR. 2. SREEKANTAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR. 3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KANNUR DISTRICT, PAYYANNUR. 4. KINAKKUR ZACHARIA, ELITE HOTEL, KUTTUMUKHAM, KANNUR. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.TEK CHAND R2 BY ADV. MR.P.NARAYANAN, SC,SREEKANDAPURAM G.P. R3 BY ADV. MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC R4 BY ADV. MR.P.M.PAREETH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 25204/2007-A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPIES OF THE REPORT DATED 21/02/2007, 20/04/2007 AND 26/07/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 24/03/2007 SBMITTED BY VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE R.D.O., THALASSERY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/03/2007 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/06/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KANNUR BASED ON THE INSPECTION CONDUCTED ON 15/09/2007 ALONG WITH EXHIBITS. EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22/10/2005 OF HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KOOTTUMUGHAM. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TEST DATED 26/10/2007. EXT.R4(c): COPY OF THE LETTERS DATED 26/10/2007 AND 19/10/2007 FORWARDING THE SAMPLE OF WATER TO THE LABORATORY. EXT.R4(d): COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE TESTS. EXT.R4(e): COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.221/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER. EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02/05/2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THIS RESPONDENT BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3.428/04 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14/08/2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ====================== W.P.(C) No. 25204 of 2007 ====================== Dated, this the 19th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The main prayer is for issuance of a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to alleviate the grievance with regard to the pollution caused to the well water of the petitioner due to percolation of the waste water from the under ground pit constructed by the fourth respondent who is running a hotel near the property of the petitioner. Relying on Exhibit P1 report issued by the Kerala Water Authority, the petitioner contends that the water collected from the petitioner's well is contaminated with Bacteria including 'E.Coli' and further that the tested water sample was certified as “not fit for drinking without proper treatment”. Reliance is also placed on Exhibit P2 report submitted by the Village Officer before the R.D.O., Thalassery observing that the wall of the tank constructed by the fourth respondent near the property of the petitioner is not plastered by cement; that no licence has been renewed by the Panchayath for running the hotel W.P.(C) No. 25204/2007 -:2:- for the period 2007-2008; and that the waste water tank had to be subjected to proper maintenance, recommending removal of the tank to a distant place from the present location. The petitioner contends that Exhibits P3, P4, and P5 representations submitted before respondents 3, 2 and 1 respectively have not yielded at any positive result, which has led to filing of this writ petition. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the mother of the petitioner had filed a Civil Suit against the fourth respondent as O.S.No.221 of 2005 before the Munsiff's Court, Taliparamba, which however, was withdrawn recording the compromise arrived at between the parties, particulars of which are not discernible from the materials on record. It is further stated in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that, pursuant to the direction given by the first respondent, the concerned authorities including the Environmental Engineer and the Medical authorities conducted spot W.P.(C) No. 25204/2007 -:3:- inspection and necessary directions were given to take remedial measures including construction of Septic tank and waste tank to store the waste water, which was agreed to by the parties. The report on analysis of the water collected from the well belonging to the petitioner says it as “not satisfactory”. It has been pointed out in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that there is a 'latrine pit' 6.5 metres near to the well of the petitioner and that the same is being used by the petitioner himself. It is also added that the well is just 30 metres away from a Thodu and that during non- rainy season, due to lack of water, there was a chance to have the clay percolated from the Thodu to the nearby well, making the water polluted. As per the report submitted by the Medical Officer, P.H.C., Kottumukham, it is stated that there was every chance for the petitioner's well for being polluted on account of the leakage from the 'latrine pit' of the petitioner himself, simultaneously adding that the 'dye test' conducted by the Health Inspector and the Junior Health Inspector in the presence of the petitioner, second W.P.(C) No. 25204/2007 -:4:- respondent, fourth respondent, President of the Panchayath and ward member revealed that the well water was not contaminated with the 'dye' applied to the waste water in the pit conducted by the fourth respondent. Still, necessary instructions are stated as given to all concerned, for solving the problem once and for all. 3. The second respondent Panchayath has filed a statement almost in the similar lines with regard to the chance for leakage from the latrine pit belonging to the petitioner and situated just 6.5 metres away from the well, to have the well water contaminated. It is also stated that the Panchayath has given necessary instructions to conduct 'dye test' as borne by Exhibit R2(b) and further that the Panchayath had not given any licence for the hotel in the disputed building for the year 2007-2008. 4. The third respondent Pollution Control Board has filed a statement producing a copy of the report dated 15.9.2007 of the Environmental Engineer, Kannur, W.P.(C) No. 25204/2007 -:5:- confirming the presence of the 'Coliform Bacteria' in the well water of the petitioner, stating that it is generally due to sewage contamination. It is also stated therein that the waste water of the hotel is to be given more treatment to achieve the Bio-Chemical Oxygen Demand limit of 30mg/l, whereas the existing level showed it at 52mg/l, which exceeding the prescribed limit. 5. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit asserting that there is absolutely no contamination of the well water because of any action or inaction in running of the hotel by him. Exhibits R4(a) to R4(d) have also been produced along with the counter affidavit in support of the contentions. Exhibit R4(d) report, on conducting the 'dye test', certified that no Tartrazine dye was detected, though the quality of the water was “not satisfactory”. It is further stated therein that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner were only due to his malafide intention for prohibiting the fourth respondent from conducting the hotel. W.P.(C) No. 25204/2007 -:6:- 6. It is evident from the available records that the main reason for contamination of the well water infested with 'Coliform bacteria' is having more proximity to the latrine pit situated in the petitioner's property itself, 6.5 metres away from the well. Of course, further contamination on other heads is also possible because of the inadequacy of the maintenance of the ground water pit constructed by the fourth respondent as suggested by the Pollution Control Board in their report and also because of the proximity to the nearby Thodu from where chance for the clay to be percolated to the well is there during non- rainy season. Respondents 1 to 3 are rather of common opinion that further examination and analysis are very much necessary to identify the actual cause of pollution/contamination of the water in the well. 7. In the above facts and circumstances, the third respondent Pollution Control Board is directed to conduct necessary inspection and suggest proper remedial W.P.(C) No. 25204/2007 -:7:- measures to see that the drinking water in the well belonging to the petitioner is made fit for consumption, giving appropriate directions to the concerned parties as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. skr