POORNA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has placed an interesting question, while challenging Ext. P11 notice issued by the Corporation of Trivandrum dated 24.2.2003. Reference is made to the decision of the Council dated 2.8.2001, as also the communication that had been exchanged between the parties. It was on the subject of collection of waste from the Corporation area.

(2.) It had been informed by Ext. P11 that proceedings against the petitioner will be taken if it was found that persons deputed by the petitioner were found collecting refuse and waste from the jurisdictional limits of the Corporation. It is also pointed out that it had come to the notice of the Corporation that the Society represented by the petitioner had through its employees had been collecting such waste from certain areas of the Corporation and were depositing such waste in the receptacles of the Corporation. Reference is made to an earlier notice issued to the petitioner during March, 2002 requiring abstinence from such steps. When the petitioner had requested for grant of such permission, they had been informed that since the Corporation had resolved to make such collections through units of "Kudumbashree" and the proposal was being implemented, their application cannot be considered. The allegation is that notwithstanding the advice, the petitioner was resorting to such collection.

(3.) Petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The objectives of the Society include steps for undertaking research and extension activities in environment protection and waste management. In furtherance of such objects, Society had resolved to create an awareness among the residents of the Corporation about the timely collection and efficient disposal of waste. Ultimately a system was evolved whereunder persons deputed by the petitioner were to collect waste from the residential houses in specified areas and for disposing the same without health hazards. Though the petitioner has stated that waste collected were disposed by placing them in vacant lands, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact they are put in bins and receptacles that were placed by the Corporation in different areas for such purpose. According to them, this could not have been termed as objectionable, and they had no intention to interfere with the rights of the Corporation for the management of waste and rubbish. It is also submitted that this work was done predominantly as social work and they had dealings only with persons who expressed willingness to associate with them. In other words, there was no compulsion to accept their services. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the objections were arbitrary since such work could be carried out by them along with persons who had similar assignments, either at the behest of the Corporation or through their contractors or members from "Kudumbashree". The further submission was that there was mala fide motive so as to interdict the petitioner from such work with personal motives.