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

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52485

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.D RAMAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
C.T SUNITHA – Respondent


Advocates:
['P B SAHASRANAMAN', '', 'K JAGADEESH', 'T S HARIKUMAR', 'SRI T A UNNIKRISHNAN', 'GOVERNMENT PLEADER', 'SRI M P PRABHAKARAN PALAKKAD']

Abdul Rehim,J

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

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top