MARIYAPURAM POURA SAMITHY Vs. LEO.V.J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third respondent in W.P.(C) No.34132 of 2016 has filed this petition under the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that the respondents herein have disobeyed Annexure A1 order passed by this Court on 2 nd February, 2017. By this order, this Court directed the Pollution Control Board to identify the wells, the water of which are acidic in nature, in the immediate neighbourhood of the factory of the 1 st respondent/writ petitioner and to get the wells cleaned by him under the supervision of the Pollution Control Board. It was also directed that in the meanwhile, drinking water shall be supplied by the writ petitioner to the owners of the affected wells who are not availing supply of water from the Kerala Water Authority.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner herein that despite their requirement of continued supply of water and cleaning of the wells, both the writ petitioner and the Pollution Control Board have failed in their duties. They also accuse the Secretary of the Corporation for having not taken action against the writ petitioner, in pursuance of the liberty given by this Court in Annexure A1.

(3.) From the affidavits filed by the parties and the submissions made before us by the respective Counsel appearing for the respondents, we find that it is the case of the Pollution Control Board that in pursuance of Annexure A1 order, they have already identified sixteen affected wells and that three of these wells have already been cleaned up. It is stated that the cleaning of the remaining wells could not be continued on account of the obstruction caused by the members of the petitioner herein. Insofar as the case of the writ petitioner is concerned, he also says that though initially he could supply drinking water as directed by this Court, continued supply was rendered impossible on account of the obstruction caused by the members of the petitioner. He also referred to Annexure A2, where he had to seek orders for police protection for the normal functioning of the factory. Reference is also made to the affidavit in Annexure R1(a), where, according to him, he has explained the obstruction faced by him in the matter of supply of drinking water as well. Similar is the contention raised by the 3rd respondent also.