Biju P. Sebastian & Graceson Philip v State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017/4TH SRAVANA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 20118 of 2017 (L)** **------------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) : -------------------------** **1. BIJU P.SEBASTIAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. SEBASTIAN,** - **KP 8/205, PALLATH HOUSE,** - **MEENMUTTI POST, KODENCHERY POST, KOZHIKODE.** **2. GRACESON PHILIP, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. PHILIPOSE K.O., KP 8/83B, ELAVUMKAL HOUSE, MEENMUTTI POST, KODENCHERY POST, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADVS. SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ SRI.V.HARISH** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** - **----------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POWER, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.** **4. DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, C2-III FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.** **5. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673 020.** **6. KODENCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUNNAKKADU, KODENCHERY - 673 580, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **..2/-** **..2..** **WP(C).No. 20118 of 2017 (L)** **------------------------------------------** **7. M/S. CIAL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT XI/318E, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BUILDING, KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683 111, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **R1 TO R3 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VINEETHA HARIRAJ R7 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR** **SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-07-2017, THE COURT ON 26-07-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Msd. **WP(C).No. 20118 of 2017 (L)** ## **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :** - **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE KERALA SMALL HYDRO POWER POLICY, 2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT DATED 24.10.2014 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 11.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.09.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED 07.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 01.02.2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PROFESSOR, NIR CALICUT, 5TH RESPONDENT AND THE TAHSILDAR, THAMARASERRY.** - **EXHIBIT P8(A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 28.03.2017 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 17.04.2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 24.04.2017 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST.** - **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P11(A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 14.07.2015 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DIRECTION DATED 13.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE MOEF.** - **EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LARGE SCALE MINING AND CONSTRUCTIONAL ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT NEAR THE RESIDENCE OF THE PETITIONERS.** ## **WP(C).No. 20118 of 2017 (L)** ## **-----------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT OF THE HIGH LEVEL WORKING GROUP ON WESTERN GHATS VOLUME 1.** **EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 19.03.2017 IN THE HINDU DAILY.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R7(A): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 08.04.2017.** **EXHIBIT R7(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 07.04.2017.** **EXHIBIT R7(C): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER'S WIFE TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON 08.04.2017. EXHIBIT R7(D): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD BY ADM ON 05.05.2017.** **EXHIBIT R7(E): TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING CONVENED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 17.05.2017. EXHIBIT R7(F): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. E5-1106/2016 DATED 09.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R7(G): TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL OF THE TECHNO ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY REPORT (TEFR) RECEIVED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT VIDE LETTER NO. EMC/SHPC/TEFR/ARIPPARA/CIAL/1 DATED 28.09.2015. EXHIBIT R7(H): TRUE COPY OF THE NOC OBTAINED FROM 6TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH VIDE MOM DATED 14.07.2015 BEARING NO. 96/15 FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT. EXHIBIT R7(I): TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT SIGNED WITH IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA VIDE NO. E5-1954/2015 DATED 05.11.2015 FOR TAKING UP CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE IRUVANHIPUZHAIN NELLIPOYIL VILLAGE, 6TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.** **WP(C).No. 20118 of 2017 (L)** **-----------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT R7(K):** **TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. B-29012/ESS(CPA)/2015-16 DATED 07.03.2016 ISSUED BY CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO ALL STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARDS.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE.** Msd. ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J** **======================== W.P(C) No. 20118 of 2017- L =========================== Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners herein are residents of a locality in which a Hydro Electric Project is being established by the 7[th] respondent. The petitioners contend that there is blasting and mining activities carried on for the purpose of establishment of the project which hazardously affects the Nellippoyil and Kodenchery Villages situated within the Kozhikode Taluk, which Villages are declared as Environmental Sensitive Area's (for short 'ESA') as per Ext.P12 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, ('MoEF') Government of India. The power project is said to be established in the Iruvanhipuzha (a river), the course of WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 2 : which is diverted and the agricultural activity down stream would also stand detrimentally affected. The 1[st] petitioner owns 10 cents of land situated in Kodenchery Village in Kozhikode Taluk adjacent to the construction site , wherein he is residing with his family. The first petitioner's residential house is within 20 meters of the construction site.The second petitioner also has a residence nearby, within 50 meters in 2.5 acres of land owned by him. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner takes me through the policy as framed by the State of Kerala produced at Ext.P1 which mandates statutory clearance; to be obtained, in accordance with the various enactments. It is pointed out that specific environmental issues and precautions as specified in the policy; have not been reduced to the terms of the agreement as is seen from Ext.P2. Even then, Ext.P2 provides for safeguards to protect the environment and compliance of the applicable laws as also provides for remedial and compensatory measures to WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 3 : protect the environment and also the structures in the vicinity. These conditions are thrown to the winds by the 7[th] respondent who has been granted contract for establishment of such project under the Build Own Operate and Transport (BOOT) scheme. 3. Blasting operations are carried out indiscriminately without any permits and sanctions and quarrying too in a like manner; when a stop memo was issued by the Village Officer as is seen from Ext.P3. The District Collector as the Chairman of the Disaster Management Committee directed inspection of the premises by the Deputy Collector and found unauthorized dumping of debris and sand on the banks of the river and widespread damage caused to the houses which is discernible from Ext.P4 communication issued to the 7[th] respondent; directing immediate remedial measures. 4. The District Collector had further proceeded in the matter through Ext.P5 proceedings by appointing a WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 4 : committee consisting of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Secretary, Kodanchery Grama Panchayat, and Deputy Tahasildar, Thamarassery Taluk Office. The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD was also directed to inspect the the houses alleged to have been damaged; to assess the loss occasioned and for computation of compensation, if any payable. The inspection report is placed at Ext.P6. By Ext.P8 minutes of the meeting convened in the chamber of the District Collector; an expert committee was again constituted from the National Institute of Technology. Though the inspections were carried out, it was a mere eyewash and nothing was practically done to stop the illegal activity of mining and blasting which continues unabated, causing further damage to the structures in the vicinity. The Panchayat too turned a blind eye to the environmental depredations carried out by the 7[th] respondent and a No Objection Certificate has been granted based on the resolution of the Panchayat produced at Ext.P11(a). WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 5 : 5. It is specifically contended based on Ext.P12 notification that mining, quarrying and sand mining is prohibited insofar as the ESA's; which notification itself includes Nellipoyil and Kodanchery Villages of Kozhikode Taluk. The photographs are specifically pointed out to contend that it evidences the dumping of waste and quarried sand in the area causing disastrous consequences to the environment and also to the people residing in the locality. The report of the High Level Working Group on Western Ghats produced as Ext.P14; accepted by MoEF, as per Ext.P12 specifically prohibits the activity carried on by the 7[th] respondent. The prohibition is insofar as hydro power projects in ESA's; which as per the mandate of Ext.P14, can be permitted only subject to the conditions as stipulated in Paragraph 6. It is also pointed out that Ext.P14 frowns down upon industries with environmental impact and the power project now sought to be established, diverting the very course of the river; results in everlasting WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 6 : environmental impact in the area. 6. The learned Counsel would place reliance on **Bhagwan Dass v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1976 SC 1393]** to contend that winning of a mineral does not imply a hazardous or perilous activity and any operation undertaken for the purpose of winning any minor mineral beneath the sub-soil notwithstanding the commercial implication, will be an activity as defined under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short 'MMDR Act') Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015 (for short 'KMMC Rules') and Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015 (for brevity “Transportation Rules”). To further buttress the contentions, reliance is also placed on **1979(3) SCC 106 (Sri Tarkeshwar SIO Thakur JIU v. Dar Dass Dey & CO. & Othrs.)** 7. The learned Counsel for the 7[th] respondent would place reliance on the decisions reported in **AIR 1993** WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 7 : **(144) [Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others]** and **2015 (12) SCC 736 [ Promoters and Builders Association of Pune v. State of Maharashtra and others]** to defend the action carried on by the 7[th] respondent, which is asserted to be in accordance with the exemption as available under Rule 106 of the KMMC Rules. Excavation of ordinary earth, for clearing the river bed and for construction of the building wherein the project is sought to be set up would not amount to a mining activity, covered under the MMDR Act, is the argument raised. 8. The learned Counsel for the 7[th] respondent would refer to the policy as produced at Ext.P1 to contend that small Hydro Power Projects having a capacity of 25 MW are categorised as White Industry not requiring an Environmental Clearance as referred to in the notification of the MoEF. With respect to the blasting operations it is undertaken that there is no further blasting required in the WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 8 : area. It is argued that the petitioner had not co-operated with the inspections carried on by the Committee appointed by the District Collector. The petitioners had acted in a cavalier manner demanding that the 7[th] respondent their for astronomical amounts as purchase property claimed by them. 9. The petitioners are alleged to have suppressed material facts and to prove that, letters sent by the 1[st] petitioner and the 2[nd] petitioner produced at Ext.R7(a) to Ext.R7(c) is relied on. It is contended that only on the attempts to extract astronomical sums from the 7[th] respondent failed, the writ petition was filed, raising untenable contentions seeking to stall the establishment of the project and thereby coerce the 7[th] respondent to purchase their property. The project is being established with all necessary licenses and approvals and is carried out with the Techno Economic Feasibility Report as produced at Ext.P7(g) of the Energy Management Centre, Trivandrum, the WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 9 : Nodal Agency under the Department of Power, Government of Kerala, entrusted with the task of implementing small hydro electric projects. It is contented that there is no basis for the submission that the stream or flow of water is diverted since what is carried out is a minor diversion for the purpose of power generation, to the power plant and then the flow being resumed immediately down stream. 10. It is also argued that the river is not one having a perennial flow and only fills up during the monsoons in which period alone, there would be power generation effected. The project is also carried out under the supervision of the Irrigation Department. The declaration of the small electric projects below 25 MW as a white industry has been made by the MoEF the notification of which is not available but is evident from the press release made by the Ministry as per Ext.R7(j). The 7[th] respondent prays that the writ petition be dismissed. WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 10 : 11. The 7[th] respondent does not claim to have any permits or sanctions to carry out blasting operations. The only contention raised before this Court as of now, is that there is no further blasting operations to be carried out for the project. In the circumstances of the specific undertaking, this Court would not look into whether the blasting operations were carried on legally or make any observations with respect to that; since if the blasting operations were carried on illegally or even legally and has caused damage to the property or building of the petitioners; then the remedy would be elsewhere. If such activity was illegal then always a prosecution could be initiated which again does not come within the scope of the above writ petition. On the said aspect suffice it to direct the District Administration to ensure that no further blasting operations be permitted by the 7[th] respondent unless otherwise than in accordance with law. The petitioners would be left liberty to pursue the appropriate remedies with respect to what is stated above. WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 11 : 12. In this context, it is also to be specifically noticed that the 7[th] respondent does not put forth any sanctions or permissions having been obtained for blasting operations. The specific undertaking is that no blasting would be hereafter conducted. It is also to be noticed that in paragraph 18 of the affidavit filed by the Company Secretary of the 7[th] respondent,it has been categorically stated so.:- 18. It further vehemently denied that any blasting activities are being undertaken at present. It is clarified that controlled blasting was last done at Arippara Project site in August 2016 and after that no excavation (blasting) has been done at the site. Hence it is admitted that the blasting operations are carried on and that the same was without any sanctions as required in law. At the risk of repetition, it is directed that the District Administration shall ensure that no further blasting is carried on, unless in accordance with law. 13. However it is to be noticed that there is no basis for the contention of the 7[th] respondent that the writ WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 12 : petition is motivated by malafides, at least based on the letters produced at Ext.R7(a) to (c). Those are complaints addressed by the petitioners to the 7[th] respondent, pointing out the damages caused to their residences and property and putting forth their assessment of the loss occasioned. Neither the letters nor the writ petition can be styled as pressure tactics, to coerce the 7[th] respondent into purchasing their properties for astronomical sums. The District Collector had also taken note of the situation of damages having been occasioned and constituted committees for assessing the loss. The assessment made by the petitioners or the Committee appointed by the District Collector is definitely not final and the petitioner could always take appropriate proceedings for assessment of the loss caused and claim damages for that. 14. As for the sanctions and permissions required, the contention raised is of Rule 106 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, which has been held to be WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 13 : ultravires by judgment dated 07.12.2016 in W.P(C) 16763 of 2016. Admittedly, the said declaration stands stayed by a Division Bench and as of now, it may not be proper for this Court to proceed on the basis that the Rule is ultravires. 15. Rule 106 of the KMMC Rules by sub-clause (3) exempts” public works like roads, canals, irrigation projects railways...” from obtaining quarrying permit for extraction of minor mineral as an inevitable process and the Hydro Power Project sought to be established would be a similar public work as covered by the aforesaid provision. It is also pertinent that the Irrigation Department is supervising the work, which is evidenced by the directions issued at Ext.R7(f) cautioning the 7[th] respondent about the need to carry on the construction activities without causing pollution in the river and the requirement for providing sufficient strengthening of the banks of the river to ensure that neither sand is dumped nor boulders fall, into the stream of the river. The Energy Management Centre has also by WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 14 : Ext.R7(g) issued a technical feasibility report based on which the project is carried out. 16. In the teeth of the exemption as available under Rule 106, this Court need not look into the aspect of whether the quarrying activity carried on for the establishment of the project is one, which can be defined as a process resulting in the winning of a mineral. Neither is it relevant to decide on whether the same is a perilous or hazardous activity. As for the commercial implications it is admitted that no mineral is taken out from the work site and commercially exploited. 17. Ext.P1 policy is with respect to projects with installed capacity upto 25MW. Statutory clearances as per paragraph 8 is from the local body where the project is located, Revenue Department or the Forest Department considering the nature and ownership of the land in which such project is established and a No Objection Certificate from the Irrigation Department. The policy also speaks of WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 15 : environmental issues in paragraph 23, wherein, the project proponent is required to make suitable financial provision for adverse as mitigating impacts per the approved environmental impact assessment plan. The project cost has to include rehabilitation and resettlement of any adverse impact caused, as laid out in the Environmental Management Plan. This does not necessarily lead to an assumption that an Environmental Impact Assessment Plan or the Environmental Management Plan is to be essentially drawn up. These are requirements under the Environmental Impact Assessment notifications issued by the Central Government and the stipulations as per the statutory rules framed under the MMDR Act. When these are specifically exempted by the EIA notifications and the statutory rules, there can be no reliance placed on paragraph 23 of the policy document to find that such plans are required for carrying out the establishment of the project. WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 16 : 18. Rule 106 exempts the prescription for obtaining a quarrying permit as has already been referred to. The press release as evident from Ext.R7(j) made by the Environmental Ministry with respect to the new categorisation of industries includes in the List Of White Category Of Industries at Table 4, as item No.35 “solar power generation through solar photovoltaic cell, wind power and mini hydel power (less than 25MW)”. This is the criteria as per the notification, which exempts a consent to establish or operate from the Pollution Control Board. 19. Much has been argued on the basis of the P14 report of the High Level Working Group on Western Ghats and P12 notification dated 13.11.2013. One cannot bring in a statutory prescription looking at the report alone, though the report has been accepted by the Government of India as evidenced from Ext.P12. The further stipulations in the notifications brought out by the Government of India is what is to be specifically adverted to. The argument of the WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 17 : petitioners is that the activity of mining ,quarrying and sand mining as available in clause (a) of paragraph 9 required a clearance from the State Environmental Assessment Committee or the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities, which consent should be also prior to 17.04.2013. In this context it is to be noticed that by clause (d) of paragraph 9, “township and area development projects with an area of 50 hectors and above and / or with built up area of 1,50,000 sq.m and above” and red category industries referred to in clause (e) are specifically prohibited. Though the two villages in which the project is being established has been declared as an Environmental Sensitive Zone, the building construction being less than 1,50,000 sq.m. and the project itself being categorised as a white category industry, the project is not one prohibited by the aforesaid notification. 20. Reference can also be made usefully to **Promoters and Builders Association of India** , wherein the WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 18 : Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. (Corporation) was given a grant of land for the purpose of carrying out digging activities with the intention of widening of the water channel through which sea water is drawn for the purpose of cooling the nuclear plant in Tarapur Atomic Station. The extracted earth was not used by the Corporation for any commercial purposes. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for reason of mere digging of earth without any commercial exploitation of sale or transfer; intended only at realizing the purpose of widening of the channel; it cannot be termed to be a mining activity coming within the 1957 Act. The facts are more or less similar insofar as the 7[th] respondent having carried out extraction, for the purpose of minimally diverting the flow into the hydro electric plant for the purpose of generation of power. The building constructed is of plinth area, less than that prescribed by Ext.P12 notification. There can hence be found no prohibition from the EIA notification or from the statutory rules under the WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 19 : MMDR Act. 21. The building however has to be constructed with a valid permit from the local authority. The policy requires the same and so does the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Building Rules, 2011. Admittedly the 7[th] respondent does not, as of now, have a building permit. In obtaining a building permit, the 7[th] respondent would have to approach the local authority and will also have to obtain a permission to establish under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The same having not been obtained as of now, there could be no extraction conducted or construction activity carried on for the purpose of the building; despite such activity not requiring any clearance as per the statutory rules under the MMDR Act or the notifications issued under the Environmental Protection Act. 22. Needless to say that the 7[th] respondent would be entitled to approach the local authority and after WPC.No. 20118/2017 : 20 : obtaining such permission to establish and a building permit; would be entitled to proceed in accordance with the same. As of now, the District Administration would ensure that no quarrying activity for the purposes of the building is carried out without the permits and sanctions as found above. The District Administration shall also ensure that no blasting operations are carried out with respect to the other digging activities. The District Administration shall also ensure that the residents of the locality are not unnecessarily harassed or subjected to any nuisance and that the locality is not polluted by dumping of debris nor the river stream obstructed in any manner. The writ petition would stand disposed of with the above directions. The parties shall suffer their respective costs. jma/SB Sd/- **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE**