SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Ker) 728

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.
A.D. Ramakrishnan S/o Dharmaraj – Appellant
Versus
C.T. Sunitha W/o Venugopal – Respondent
WA No. 1776 of 2018
Decided On : 22-08-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri. P.B. Sahasranaman, Sri. K. Jagadeesh, Sri. T.S. Harikumar.
For the Respondents: Sri. P.P. Thajudheen, Sri. Syamji Ram, Sri. M.P. Prabhakaran.

IMPORTANT POINTS
The septic tanks are created with specific chambers for helping the de-composition process through bacterial activity and it has got specific designs with measurements and with protecting walls constructed on given specifications using concrete. It is also of common knowledge that, nowadays such tanks are manufactured with PVC materials and ready made concrete tanks are also available-Nature of the construction, the purpose, and the process of de-composition, are entirely different in both the cases. Therefore we are persuaded to hold that the word “cesspool” contained in the Public Health Act cannot in any manner be equated as synonymous to the word “septic tank” contained in the Building Rules.

Headnote:

Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, - The Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994Sections 235A, 235B, 235F, 235P, 235W r/w 254 - The Public Health Act , Section 32 -The provisions of Section 32 of the Public Health Act cannot apply with respect to construction of any “septic tank” and the distance prohibition contained therein is not applicable for construction of the septic tanks. The prohibition of keeping distance of 7.5 meters from well used for supply of water for human consumption and for domestic purpose, as provided under Rule 85 of the Building Rules, alone need to be adhered in the matter of construction of septic tanks- The word “cesspool” contained in the Public Health Act cannot in any manner be equated as synonymous to the word “septic tank” contained in the Building Rules.

Statement of facts:

Challenge in the writ petition was against Exts.P2, P3, P8 and P9 proceedings-The 1st respondent/writ petitioner was constructing a residential building after obtaining a building permit from the Grama Panchayath-Notice issued for stoppage of construction of the septic tank of the said building by the writ petitioner. It is stated that, the direction was issued based on a compliant lodged by the appellant herein and based on a report obtained from the Deputy District Medical Officer, Malappuram, that the septic tank is being constructed without keeping the distance of 15 Meters from the nearest drinking water source, as stipulated under the Public Health Act and that there are chances of polluting the drinking water source-The 'stop memo' issued to the writ petitioner cannot be withdrawn taking into consideration of the possibility of causing pollution to the drinking water source-The writ petitioner may be directed to shift the location of the septic tank to a distance of 15 Meters from the drinking water source. Ext.P9 is a letter issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath to the writ petitioner requesting compliance of the directions contained in Ext.P8.

Finding of the court:

Nature of the construction, the purpose, and the process of de-composition, are entirely different in both the cases. Therefore we are persuaded to hold that the word “cesspool” contained in the Public Health Act cannot in any manner be equated as synonymous to the word “septic tank” contained in the Building Rules-No illegality, error or impropriety in the judgment impugned in this appeal.

Result: Dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

1. The 6th respondent in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The 1st respondent herein is the writ petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 are the respondents 1 to 5 in the writ petition.

2. Challenge in the writ petition was against Exts.P2, P3, P8 and P9 proceedings. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner was constructing a residential building after obtaining a building permit from the Grama Panchayath. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by the 2nd respondent directing the 5th respondent to take steps for stoppage of construction of the septic tank of the said building by the writ petitioner. It is stated that, the direction was issued based on a compliant lodged by the appellant herein and based on a report obtained from the Deputy District Medical Officer, Malappuram, that the septic tank is being constructed without keeping the distance of 15 Meters from the nearest drinking water source, as stipulated under the Public Health Act and that there are chances of polluting the drinking water source. Ext.P3 is the consequential stop memo issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath requesting the writ petitioner to stop the construction of the septic tank. Ext.P8 is the copy of a reply letter issued by the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Panchayaths to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath, wherein it is mentioned that, the 'stop memo' issued to the writ petitioner cannot be withdrawn taking into consideration of the possibility of causing pollution to the drinking water source. In the said letter it is stated that, even though the distance to be maintained as per the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Building Rules') is only 7.5 meters, there is a report and instructions of the District Collector. Therefore it is stated that the writ petitioner may be directed to shift the location of the septic tank to a distance of 15 Meters from the drinking water source. Ext.P9 is a letter issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath to the writ petitioner requesting compliance of the directions contained in Ext.P8.

3. While considering the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that, the District Medical Officer had suggested shifting of the septic tank on the basis of provisions contained in the Madras Public Health Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Public Health Act’). But it was noticed in the judgment that, as per Rule 85 of the Building Rules the distance to be maintained is only 7.5 meters. The learned Single Judge found that, in fact there is a distance of 8.5 Meters kept from the well of the appellant to the septic tank under construction. It is also found that the septic tank is being constructed strictly in accordance with the stipulations contained in the building permit. Therefore it was found that there is no basis for issuing Ext.P3 stop memo. The Single Judge noticed that, by virtue of an interim order passed in the writ petition permitting the construction, the septic tank was fully constructed and the Grama Panchayath had issued "Occupancy Certificate" to the building in question. Hence the writ petition was allowed by quashing Exts.P2, P3, P8 and P9 proceedings. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, the above writ appeal is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, provisions contained in Section 32 of the Public Health Act need to be strictly adhered, because the said Act is still in force in the locality (area) in question. Further it is contended that, the Public Health Act has got an overriding effect on other laws by virtue of Section 144 of the said Act. Therefore it is contended that, even though the Building Rules stipulates only a distance of 7.5 Meters, it is to be ensured that the septic tank is keeping a distance of 15 Meters from the nearest drinking water source. The above said aspect was omitted consid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top