High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2018-05-28Writ petition allowed; disposed of without costs

Kiran V v District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 9522 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Ashok Menon
Judgment Date: 2018-05-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed; Police to ensure no obstruction to the petitioner carrying on the activity, provided it operates with the Board’s consent. The Pollution Control Board’s measures outlined in its report dated 09.05.2018 must be scrupulously complied with, and the Board shall verify the activity periodically (at least every three months) and take immediate action on any complaint or violation. The petitioner may continue the activity with the Board’s consent and subject to future directions.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; disposed of without costs

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kiran V

Respondents

The District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta, Pathanamthitta District
The Circle Inspector of Police, Pandalam Police Station, Pandalam (P.O.), Pathanamthitta District
The Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam Police Station, Pandalam (P.O.), Pathanamthitta District
SASI. O., Parakunnil, Kurumpala, Pandalam (P.O.) Pathanamthitta District
The Tahsildar Taluk Office Adoor, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta District
Kerala State Pollution Control Board District Office, Near General Hospital, K.K. Nair Road, Pathanamthitta
Addl. R5 (Impleaded as per order dated 10.04.2018 in I.A. No.6828/2018)
Addl. R6 (Suo Motu Impleaded as per order dated 10.04.2018 in WP(C) No.9522/2018)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.V. Thamban
• R. Reji
• Thara Thamban
• B. Bipin
• Arun Bose

Counsels for Respondents

• T. Naveen
• P. P. Thajuddin

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Kiran V, leased government water body land in Kurampala Village for a fish farm and complied with the lease conditions. After commencing operations, a fourth respondent allegedly obstructed the activity, prompting a writ petition seeking protection of the petitioner’s right to carry on the leasehold fish farming and addressing pollution concerns. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) was impleaded and directed to inspect. A board report dated 24.04.2018 indicated that the pond water parameters were within limits and not contaminated, though it cautioned that sampling from the surface of a large water body might not detect all pollutants. It recommended pollution-control measures: install a waste-water treatment system using sand filtration and activated carbon, with periodic media replacement and monitoring of the discharged water. The petitioner was directed to implement these measures. A subsequent report noted partial installation; police protection was sought due to local obstruction. The Board’s affidavit dated 09.05.2015 prescribed conditions: no chicken waste as feed; discharge only through filter media; media replacement if clogged; increase filter capacity; cultivate only fresh-water fish, excluding African catfish. By May 2018, filtration tanks were installed; full compliance awaited removal of obstruction. The court directed police protection and periodic Board verification, allowing the petitioner to continue with Board consent and to ensure measures are scrupulously followed. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of without costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends a right to operate the leased water body for fish farming, having complied with lease conditions, and seeks protection against obstruction by local authorities. He asserts that pollution concerns are addressed by the KSPCB's inspections and the mandatory adherence to pollution-control measures, including a filtration-based treatment system, to prevent any environmental harm. The writ petition requests permission to continue activity with the Board’s consent and subject to compliance with Board-directed safeguards, along with police protection against obstruction.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the pollution risk from waste-water discharge necessitates oversight and conditional authorization. They propose that the petitioner operate only subject to the Pollution Control Board’s directions, regular verification, and enforcement in case of violations. The Board’s reports and affidavits justify oversight and protective measures to prevent contamination of nearby water bodies, while police protection is necessary to ensure compliance and deter obstruction.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Kiran V v District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON** **MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 9522 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:-** ## **KIRAN.V** **AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. VISWANATHAN, KALABHAVANAM, KUDASSANAD P.O., PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 512.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN** **SRI.R.REJI** **SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, PATHANAMTHITTA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN- 689 645.** **2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM (P.O.) PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 548.** **3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM (P.O.) PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 548.** **4. SASI. O., PARAKUNNIL, KURUMPALA, PANDALAM (P.O.) PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 501.** - **5. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE ADOOR, ADOOR P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 694.** *** [ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.04.2018 IN I.A. NO.6828 OF 2018].** - **6. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL K.K. NAIR ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA.** *** [ADDL. R6 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.04.2018 IN WP(C) NO.9522 OF 2018].** **BY ADV. SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.P. THAJUDDIN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 9522 of 2018 (M)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :- -----------------------------------** |**EXT.P1**|**-**|**COPY OF THE FORM OF ORDER OF GRANT OF GOVERNMENT LAND FOR**| |---|---|---| |||**TEMPORARY FISH CULTURE PURPOSE BEARING NO. B5-14313/11 WITH**| |||**TYPED COPY.**| |**EXT.P2**|**-**|**COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE**| |||**OFFICER, KURAMPALA.**| |**EXT.P3**|**-**|**COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT DATED 05.12.2017 OF THE ASSISTANT**| |||**SCIENTIST, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA.**| |**EXT.P4**|**-**|**COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.01.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER**| |||**BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**EXT.P5**|**-**|**COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 02.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE**| |||**3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**RESPONDENTS'**||**EXHIBITS:-**| |**---------------------------------------**||| |**ANXRE R5(A) -**||**COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT OF TREATED WATER SAMPLES**| |||**COLLECTED FROM THE POND ON 21.11.2017.**| |||**//TRUE COPY//**| |||**P.A. TO JUDGE**| **sp** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN & ASHOK MENON, JJ.** **---------------------------------W.P(C). No.9522 of 2018 [M] ---------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of May, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** ## K. Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioner had taken a property with a water body on lease from the Government, for conducting a fish farm. The property is situated in Resurvey No.527/2 of Block No.3 of Kurampala Village. The petitioner had complied with the conditions as per the lease granted by the Government and was carrying on the fish farming, when the 4[th] respondent is said to have objected to the same and physically obstructed the said activity. **W.P(C). No.9522 of 2018 [M]** **2** 2. Despite issuance of notice to the 4[th] respondent, none appears. The learned Government Pleader on instructions from the official respondents submits that there is an allegation of pollution from the waste deposited in the water body as food for the fish. It is hence there was some disturbance in the local area with respect to the carrying on of the activity. In that circumstances, we directed the Kerala State Pollution Control Board be impleaded. The Pollution Control Board was also directed to carry out an inspection and file a report. 3. A report dated 24.04.2018 was filed, producing Annexure R5(a) analysis report of the sample collected from the farm by the Board officials on 21.11.2017. The report indicates that the parameters were within limits and the water was **W.P(C). No.9522 of 2018 [M]** **3** not contaminated. Even according to the Board, this could be because of the large quantity of water and the Board having taken samples from the surface. However, it was suggested that for controlling pollution of water bodies due to discharge of waste water from the farm, the petitioner should install adequate waste water treatment system like sand filter and activated carbon filters. The waste water had to be discharged after filtration through the above installed sand filter and activated carbon. It was also observed that the sand or activated carbon has to be removed periodically so as to ensure that there is no contamination caused. 4. We directed the petitioner to carry out the said measures so as to control the pollution. The Board again filed an affidavit dated 09.05.2015. Paragraph 2 of the said affidavit is relevant, **W.P(C). No.9522 of 2018 [M]** **4** ## which is extracted hereunder: _“2. It is respectfully submitted that the Board has no objection in the project proponent discharging the water in the pond under pollution angles subject to the condition that_ _i. Chicken waste is not used for feeding the fish._ _ii. Discharge is made only through the filter media._ _iii. The filter media is replaced immediately if clogging is observed._ _iv. The capacity of the two filter media tanks is increased to 1000 litres each._ _v. Only fresh water fish shall be cultivated. Fishes like African Cat Fish [African Mushi], which feed on chicken and other waste is not cultivated._ _It is respectfully suggested that the Board be also informed, if pumping starts, so that the Board officials can verify the effectiveness of the system and also test the quality of the discharged water and also the quality of water in the drains in the nearby field into which the water reaches and issue directions to the project proponent as and when required.”_ ## 5. The petitioner then took further time to implement the measures as suggested by the Board **W.P(C). No.9522 of 2018 [M]** **5** and there was a further report filed on 24.05.2018. The said report indicated that two tanks each for sand and carbon filtration have been set up, with capacity of 500 litres each. However, there was no installation as such made, which the petitioner's Counsel submitted was by reason of the physical obstruction caused by the locals. We, hence, directed the Police to afford necessary protection to carry out the installation. 6. Today, we are told that the installation has been carried out and the filters are in place. Now what remains is for the petitioner to inform the Board when it is made operational and for the Board to verify whether the measures are sufficient to contain any possible pollution. It is made clear that the Board would verify the activity carried on in the leasehold premises of the petitioner **W.P(C). No.9522 of 2018 [M]** **6** periodically, at any rate at an interval of three months and issue necessary directions to the petitioner for ensuring that there is no pollution caused in the nearby water bodies. The Board shall also take into account any complaint raised by the members of the public as to any pollution occasioned and take steps expeditiously. The petitioner would be permitted to carry on the activity with consent obtained from the Board, but subject to any interdiction made by the Pollution Control Board on inspection carried out. 7. The writ petition is allowed with the above observation and the Police will ensure that no physical obstruction of the activity is carried out, if the petitioner is carrying on the same with the consent of the Board. We also make it clear that the measures suggested by the Pollution **W.P(C). No.9522 of 2018 [M]** **7** Control Board in its report dated 09.05.2018, and extracted above shall be scrupulously complied with. If there is any violation, the Board shall take immediate action. Writ petition disposed of without any order as to costs. Sd/- **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.** Sd/- **ASHOK MENON, JUDGE.** //True Copy// P.A. To Judge sp/28/05/18