High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-02-28Writ petition disposed of; liberty to approach ...

Nava Bhavana Residents Association v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.11175/2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2022-02-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of; the court did not grant the mandamus or strike down Ext P7. It records no current law-and-order problem, and closes the matter with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority if there is any further grievance in future.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; liberty to approach appropriate authority if further grievance arises.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nava Bhavana Residents Association

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala State Ground Water Authority represented by the Director
District Officer Kerala State Ground Water Authority represented by the Director
District Collector, Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram
District Police Superintendent Rural Thiruvananthapuram
Deputy Superintendent of Police Neyyattinkara
Vizhinjam Grama Panchayath represented by its Secretary
Kottukal Grama Panchayath represented by its Secretary
K. Sukumaran Jayalakshmi Nivas
Sekharan T Reshmi Bhavan
Sudheesh Krishna Service Centre
Somatheeram Research Institute Ayurvedic Hospital Pvt. Ltd.
Somatheeram Ayurvedic Beach Resort Pvt. Ltd.
Manalheeram Beach Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
Somatheeram Ayurvedic Hospital Yoga Centre Pvt. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Biju Balakrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• A. Ajith Krishnan
• V. G. Arun
• Anoop Bhaskar
• P. Benny Thomas
• V. Beena
• M. Gopakrishnan Nambiar
• P. Gopinath
• K. John Mathai
• G. S. Reghunath
• B. S. Swathi Kumar
• P. V. Sobhana

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition filed by Nava Bhavana Residents Association, a registered residents association in Thiruvananthapuram district, challenges groundwater management under the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act. The petitioner contends that the Athiyanoor block in Thiruvananthapuram District has been declared over-exploited (Exts P1–P3, P6) and suffers drinking-water scarcity. Despite these findings, several private parties — including Sekharan T Reshmi Bhavan, hotels, and resorts — are allegedly digging wells and extracting groundwater in large quantities for commercial purposes, selling water to various hotels and resorts in the area. The association argues that discriminatory extraction jeopardizes potable water supply for local residents and risks seawater intrusion given the area’s coastal proximity. It seeks a mandamus to implement the measures within a court-fixed timeframe, a certiorari to quash Ext P7, and a mandamus to prevent illegal extraction forthwith. The respondents, including state agencies and local bodies, contend there is no current law-and-order problem and resist drastic measures in the absence of a concrete violation. The court records a police report indicating no immediate issue, and, while noting the petitioner's grievances, disposes of the petition by closing with liberty to approach the appropriate authority if further grievance arises, effectively reserving government action for future contingencies.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 6(1) of the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that Athiyanoor block has been declared over-exploited under the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, with water scarcity and potential contamination risk due to proximity to the sea. It asserts that respondents 9–15 are illegally extracting groundwater for commercial purposes, undermining local drinking water security and spoiling the environment. It seeks a mandamus to implement Exts P1–P3 and P6 within a court-fixed timeframe, to quash Ext P7, and to stop illegal extraction immediately; and it seeks other requisite directions and costs.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend there is no current law-and-order issue per police records. They emphasize that groundwater regulation is being examined through official channels and that the writ petition should not compel drastic measures without a concrete violation. They argue for continued administrative discretion and the availability of remedies through proper authorities; the police report and ongoing regulatory actions justify a cautious, non-extraordinary response. The court is urged to allow for future grievance redress by petitioners via appropriate authorities rather than granting sweeping mandamus.

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 Nava Bhavana Residents Association v. State of Kerala and 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 11175 OF 2012`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` NAVA BHAVANA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION REGISTRATION NO.T.544/12,CHAPPATH, CHOVARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.SHAMMI N.J. ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.` - `2 KERALA STATE GROUND WATER AUTHORITY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JALAVINJAN BHAVAN, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, PIN 695 002.` - `3 THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA STATE GROUND WATER AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, JALAVINJAN BHAVAN, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR, PIN 695 002.` - `4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 043.` - `5 THE DISTRICT POLICE SUPERINTENDENT RURAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 005.` - `6 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 121.` - `7 VIZHINJAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH VIZHINJAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 695 521.` - `8 KOTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOTTUKAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN 695 501.` - `9 K.SUKUMARAN JAYALAKSHMI NIVAS, MOOLAKARA, CHAPPATH, KOTTUKAL P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 501.` **W.P.(C).No.11175/2012** **2** - `10 SEKHARAN T RESHMI BHAVAN, CHOWARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 501.` - `11 SUDHEESH` - `KRISHNA SERVICE CENTRE, MARAPPALAM, KAZHAVOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 526.` - `*12 SOMATHEERAM RESEARCH INSTITUTE AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., CHOWARA, KOTTUKAAL VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BABY MATHEW.` - `*13 SOMATHEERAM AYURVEDIC BEACH RESORT PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BABY MATHEW.` - `*14 MANALTHEERAM BEACH RESORTS PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BABY MATHEW.` - `*15 SOMATHEERAM AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL YOGA CENTRE PVT. LTD.` - `REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, PAULY MATHEW.` ``` R12 TO R15 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA 6534/2012 DATED 22.05.2012 ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN SRI.V.G.ARUN K7952004 SRI.ANOOP BHASKAR SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SMT.V.BEENA SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR SMT.P.V.SOBHANA ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP ``` ## **`THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:`** **W.P.(C).No.11175/2012** **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------W.P.(C).No.11175 of 2012** **---------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of February, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed with following prayers: - i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 8 to implement the proposal in Ext.P1, P2, P3 and P6, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble court. - ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P7. - iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 8 to prevent illegal extraction of ground water from the territorial jurisdiction of respondents 7 & 8, where ever it comes under the Athiyanoor block in Thiruvanaantahpuram District, forthwith. - iv. Issue such other order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. - v. Award the cost of the proceedings. (SIC) 2. Petitioner is a registered residence Association having 240 members. The area of operation of the petitioner **4** ## **W.P.(C).No.11175/2012** Association is within the territorial jurisdiction of Athiyanoor block in Thiruvananthapuram District. It is the case of the petitioner that by Ext.P1, the said area is declared as over exploited block as per Section 6(1) of the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, by the 2[nd] respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said area is severely affected with scarcity of drinking water. It is contended in the writ petition that even then respondents 9, 10, 11 and several other persons illegally digging wells in the area and extracting ground water in heavy quantity and selling it to the various hotels and resorts in the area for commercial purpose. According to the petitioner, because of discriminate extraction of ground water, the local residents in the area are always under the threat of non-availability of potable water. It is also stated that the area is very close to the sea and there is every chance to contaminate the potable water with the sea water if the ground water is extracted in such a way. It is the case of the petitioner that though respondents 2 and 3 have issued Exts.P1 and P6, respondents 1 to 8 are not implementing the same because of the influence of respondents 9, 10, 11 and other persons. Hence this writ petition is filed. **5** ## **W.P.(C).No.11175/2012** 3. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader placed on record a report of the Police Inspector, Kanjiramkulam Police Station, in which it is stated that on inspection it is found that there is no law and order problem now and there is no complaint from the residents or any others regarding the issue raised in this writ petition. 3. In such circumstances, this writ petition can be closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority if there is any further grievance. Therefore, this writ petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority if there is any further grievance in future. JV sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **W.P.(C).No.11175/2012** **6** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11175/2012`** - `PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.03.2010 OF THE 2[ND] RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 5[TH] RESPONDENT TO THE 1[ST ] RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14.3.2010 OF THE 6[TH] RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE PETITIONDATED 15.11.2011 FILLED BY THE MEMBER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 7[TH ] RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE REPIT DATED 28.11.2011 OF THE 8[TH] RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE NOTICE DASTED 20.4.2010 OF THE 3[RD ] RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 22.4.2012 OF THE 3[RD ] RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATON DATED 26.4.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4[TH] RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P9 COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE HINDU DAILY DATED 22.10.2005` - `RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS` ``` ANNEXURE-1 ``` - `TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ORIGINAL SUIT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT (VACATION),THRUVANTHAPURAM DATED 24.4.2012.` - `ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.4.2012 IN I.A. NO.1012/2012 OF THE DISTRICT COURT (VACATION), THIRUVANTHHAPURAM.` - `ANNEXURE-3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ORIGINAL SUIT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT (VACATION), THRUVANTHAPURAM DATED 27.4.2012.` - `ANNEXURE-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION DATED 6.6.2012 IN I.A. NO.1099/2012 IN O.S NO.1097/2012.` **W.P.(C).No.11175/2012** **7** ``` Exhibit -R10(a):TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ADDL. REGISTERING AUTHORITY, NEYYATTINKARA IN RESPECT VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL 01 AC 4019 DATED 10.11.2033. Exhibit -R10(b):TRUE COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY SRI.SHAMMI IN THE NAME OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN-AKASH WATER SUPPLY TO MANALTHEERAM BEACH RESORT, CHOWARA ON 30.11.2005. Exhibit -R10(C):TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTY DATED 27.10.2004 ISSUED BY SECURITY GUARD OF MANALTHEERAM BEACH RESORT IN RESPECTOF VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL 01 AC 4019 Exhibit -R10(d):TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE KOTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 11.08.2011. Exhibit -R10(e):TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION OF THE PUBLIC ANALYST, UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 21.05.2012,ISSUED TO THE 10[TH] RESPONDNT. Exhibit -R10(f):TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN ALONG WITH THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE KOTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE WIFE OF TRHE 10[TH] RESPONDENT DATED 9.8.2011. COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 11[TH ]RESPONDENT Exhibit -R11(a)TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL 01-AC 4019 OWNED BY THE PETITIONE EXT.R12(a)TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.409/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT (VACATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R12(b)TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION DATED 27.4.2012. EXT.R12(c)TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN DATED 30.4.2012. EXT.R12(d)TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.414/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ``` **8** ## **W.P.(C).No.11175/2012** ``` DISTRICT COURT (VACATION),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R12(e)TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION IN O.S. NO.414/2012. EXT.R12(f)TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 25.4.2012. ```