Kerala High Court
Sr.Linu M. George vs Koothattukulam Municipality on 17 September, 2020
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942
WP(C).No.11158 OF 2020(T)
PETITIONER/S:
1 SR.LINU M. GEORGE, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.GEORGE,
HEADMISTRESS INFANT JESUS ENGLISH MEDIUM HIGH SCHOOL,
KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686662.
2 MARIYAKUTTY ABRAHAM, AGED 56 YEARS,
W/O.A.V.ABRAHAM, ERAMPADATHIL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686662.
3 MARKOSE ULAHANNAN, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O.ULAHANNAN, THEKKUMCHERIL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686662.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JIBU P THOMAS
SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KOOTHATTUKULAM MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686662.
2 THE SECRETARY, KOOTHATTUKULAM MUNICIPALITY,
MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN-686662.
3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT
OFFICE, ERNAKULAM (II), 1ST FLOOR, MANNA RESIDENCY,
M.C. ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683542.
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR-ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE,
KAKKANAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682020.
5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER-
MUVATTUPUZHA, OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA.P.O., PIN-686669.
6 THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)-
ERNAKULAM, OFFICE OF DMO HEALTH, PARK AVENUE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682011.
WP(C).No.11158/2020 2
7 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, URBAN
AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, FIRST FLOOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN, PMG
JUNCTION TTC JUNCTION ROAD, NANTHANCODU,
KOWDIAR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695003.
R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.JAMES ABRAHAM (VILAYAKATTU)
R3 BY SRI. T.NAVEEN, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.S.GOPINATHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.11158/2020 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of September 2020 The petitioners are residents within the first respondent Koothattukulam Municipality. The said Municipality purchased a property in the year 2020. According to the petitioners, the said purchase was for establishing a waste dump cum segregation yard. The said land situated within Koothattukulam Municipality.
2. The petitioners questioned the purchase. The petitioners also questioned the proposal to establish the waste dump cum segregation yard.
3. The purchase appears to have been made by the Municipality under the Kerala Municipality (Acquisition and Disposal of Property) Rules, 2000.
3. The learned counsel for the Municipality submitted that they had not intended to use this land for solid waste management. According to them, this will be used for setting up of plastic shredding unit and bailing unit.
4. The petitioners main allegation in the writ petition is that the purchase was made in violation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. The petitioners WP(C).No.11158/2020 4 particularly points out to Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 11(f) of the aforesaid Rules refers to the identification and allocation of suitable land. This is in consultation with the Secretary, Department of Urban Affairs. The case of the petitioners is that there was no such consultation and therefore, the purchase was bad.
5. The purchase of land by the Municipality cannot be questioned with reference to State Solid Waste Management Rules. There is no contemplation that the purchase of any land even for the use of solid waste management should be with the concurrence of any statutory authority. The above Rule only refers to the identification and allocation of such land for the purpose of solid waste management. It is only when particular land is identified for the use of solid waste management, such concurrence of statutory authority is required.
6. In this case, the Municipality submitted that they are not proposing to use it for solid waste management and Solid Waste Management Rules are not applicable as far as the use of land.
7. In this matter, respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 as follows:
WP(C).No.11158/2020 5
"7. With regard to the para 5 of the writ petition this respondents submits that the Municipality is neither indented to dump and segregate solid waste and thus there is no question of seepage of waste water.
8. With respect to para 6 of the writ petition this respondent respectfully submits that the majority of the councils were approved the proposal to purchase the land in question and accordingly, the Municipality purchased the land on 23.3.2020 as sale deed No.393/2020. The petitioners contended that by establishing waste dump and segregation yard, the functioning of Infant Jesus School will affect and the drinking water source of the locality and the Mary Giri Public School will also affect. As earlier stated in this affidavit, the Municipality has no intention at all to dump the solid waste within the property in question and thus there is no question of polluting the drinking water sources around the nearby places."
The statement above is recorded.
In the light of the fact that the use of the land as above does not come within the meaning of Solid Waste Management Rules, there is no scope for giving any direction against the Municipality. The Municipality is free to use the land in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE ln WP(C).No.11158/2020 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.A12-5347/19/L.DIS DATED 30.9.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DISSENTING NOTE DATE 17.3.2020 SUBMITTED BY 11 WARD COUNCILORS OF KOOTHATTUKULAM MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGENDA NO:G-2-7324/18 DATED 29/8/2018 OF THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION DATED 02/09/2018 IN AGENDA NO:G-2-7324/18 OF THE COUNCIL OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO:G-2-5014/19 DATED 25/9/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO:G-2-5014/19 DATED 25/9/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO:G-2-5014/19 DATED 25/9/2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HANDING OVER THE INTERIM ORDER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE CHAIRMAN OF MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P9(b) PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN AT THE TIME OF HANDING OVER THE INTERIM ORDER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE CHAIRMAN OF MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILLY EDITION DATED 19/7/2020.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY KOCHI EDITION DATED 20/7/2020. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 2.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE BOARD.
ANNEXURE R3(B): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 8.11.2019 GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE R3(C): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 08.11.2019 GIVEN TO THE MUNICIPALITY.