IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 19868 of 2006(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.K.MUHAMMED, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. KOMU, PRESIDENT, EDAMULA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, KUTTIKKATTUKARA P.O., ELOOR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA. PIN - 683 504. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 3. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KADAVANTRA, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELOOR. 5. THE SECRETARY, ELOOR PANCHAYATH, ELOOR. 6. IBRAHIM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUNNY, RESIDING AT MUDAKATHIL PUTHAN PURAYIL, VADAKODEKARA, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE. ADDL. 7. A.P. FAIZAL, ADAMBAYIL HOUSE, EDAMULA P.O., KUTTIKKATTUKARA, 683 504, ERNAKULAM DIST. ADDL. 8. K.L.FRANCIS, KUNNATHU HOUSE, EDAMULA P.O., KUTT9IKKATTUKARA, 683 504, ERNAKULAM DIST. ADDL. R7 AND R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER ON IA 1309/07 DATED 25.1.2007 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R6 SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,POLU.C. FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA FOR R1,2 & 4 ADDL. R7 AND R8 BY ADV. DR.VINCENT PANIKULANGARA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.6.2006 PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.6.2006 PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH OTHER MEMBERS FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. 5TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. H 154/06 DATED 25.4.2006 OF THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY OF ELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.R5(b) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.6.2006 OF THE SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE), ELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.R5 (c) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 20.6.2006 ISSUED BY ELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 19868 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is filed for a direction to respondents 1 to 5 to stop sale of water by the sixth respondent from his property which is close to Periyar River. The case of the petitioner is that source of water for the sixth respondent is Periyar river and therefore sixth respondent has no right to exploit water source from a river by diverting it through his property. When the matter came up for hearing on an earlier occasion, this court felt that besides business interest of the sixth respondent, his business is a service to the society in as much as he is supplying drinking water to various organisations in the City. In fact this Court felt that business of this nature should be encouraged to promote public interest as drinking water is scarce and public distribution system is inadequate to meet the growing demand of the people. When additional respondents 7 and 8 complained that pumping and loading of water during late hours in the night cause inconvenience and nuisance to them, this Court prohibited transport of 2 water during late hours in the night, that is from 11 P.M. to 6 A.M. Counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that no transport is made during the hours of night prohibited by this Court under interim orders. Counsel for the fifth respondent Panchayat submitted that sixth respondent has no licence to do pumping operations and sell water within the Panchayat. However, sixth respondent's case is that no licence is required for pumping water by using a motor of less than 10 HP. I do not think Panchayat should stand in the way of sixth respondent supplying water to the public. In any case since business of the sixth respondent carried on under interim orders of this Court appears to be going on without any nuisance to any party concerned, including the Panchayat, and since it serves public interest, I feel sixth respondent should be allowed to continue it. However, if licence is required from any authority, petitioner should be given opportunity to obtain licence. W.P. is closed with the above observations. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3