SURESH GEORGE Vs. THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant filed W.P.(C) No.10109/16 mainly impugning Exts.P1 and P2, which are the notices issued by the first respondent Municipality alleging that the appellant is drawing and distributing water unauthorisedly from a well situated in his property comprised in Survey No.405/2/2 of Kakkanad village of Ernakulam district. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, holding that the petitioner's activity of drawing water from the well will have to be stopped forthwith and that the application of the appellant for permission under Section 3 of the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2002 shall be considered by the third respondent after conducting an inspection of the site in question. It is this judgment, which is impugned before us.

(2.) We heard the counsel for the appellant, Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality, Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

(3.) According to the learned Government Pleader, State Ground Water Authority has been constituted in terms of the provisions contained under Section 3 of the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act 2002, Act 19 of 2002. It is stated that an application made by the appellant for permit along with several similar applications is pending consideration of the said authority and that pending orders in the matter, the authority is following the guidelines issued by the Central Ground Water Authority in exercise of its powers under section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. To show that the matter is pending before the State Authority, the learned Government Pleader has made available copy of the minutes of the meeting of the authority held on 11.2017. On behalf of the party respondent, counsel contended that it is the statutory obligation of the petitioner to obtain permit to extract and use ground water in terms of Section 7 of Act 19 of 2002. On behalf of the Municipality also, it is pointed out that the appellant should have obtained permit under Section 416 of the Kerala Municipality Act. On these grounds, while the respondents argued that the learned Single Judge was justified in the order that was passed, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no statutory basis whatsoever for the prohibitory order that is passed.