Kerala High Court Objects To Kochi Municipal Corporation Projecting Steps Taken Under Statutory Duty As Judicial Command, Seeks Secy’s Response

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji famous that the notices issued by the Company endure from elementary errors since they don’t point out the provisions of regulation below which motion was taken.

“Why is that each time the Company at all times comes up with some elementary errors right here? Now we have written in our order what the place of regulation is… Now we’re doubting the bona fides of this Company,” the Courtroom orally noticed.

The Courtroom famous that the notices must have been issued as a part of the statutory duties of the Company. As an alternative, the notices state that the identical had been issued pursuant to the interim order of the Courtroom.

Within the interim order, the Courtroom had talked about the statutory provisions that empower the Company to cancel the occupancy certificates of entities that wouldn’t have STPs and are functioning in violation of the circumstances prescribed below Rule 19A(4) of the Kerala Municipality Constructing Guidelines, 2019.

The Courtroom had additionally directed the State Air pollution Management Board (KSPCB) to challenge closure certificates to the errant entities.

Although remedial actions had been taken, the Courtroom famous that the Company had projected as if steps had been taken at behest of Courtroom orders and never below any statutory obligation.

“Once more, we discover that the method of the Kochi Municipal Company are both out of full ignorance of place of regulation or of recalcitrance…” the Courtroom mentioned in its order.

It additionally famous that the Secretary of the Company has both intentionally issued such notices or is below full authorized recommendation. Thus, it directed the Secretary to file an affidavit explaining his place.

The Air pollution Management Board submitted that closure notices had been issued to 88 items whereas closure intention notices had been issued to 34 items. Upon listening to the identical, the Courtroom directed the Board to position on document the notices by means of further affidavit in the course of the course of the day itself.

The Courtroom orally instructed the Company that until correct motion is taken, it might be constrained to move drastic orders. The counsel for the Company submitted that revised notices can be despatched.

The case is posted on subsequent Thursday for additional consideration.

Background

A suo motu public curiosity litigation was initiated by the Excessive Courtroom in December, 2022 on the premise of a information report, which said that untreated liquid wastes from main flats and homes are being discharged into the Thevara-Perandoor Canal (TP Canal).

Subsequently, the Company filed an affidavit stating {that a} checklist of polluting flats had been ready as per the route of the NGT, notices had been despatched out and an knowledgeable committee was constituted to observe the identical. The Environmental Engineer of the KSPCB filed affidavit stating that motion plans had been formulated for the rejuvenation and prevention of contamination of 5 canals in Ernakulam metropolis, together with Edappally Canal, Thevara-Perandoor Canal, Chilavanoor Canal, Thevara Canal and, Market Canal.

In 2025, Adv. P. Ramakrishnan was appointed as Amicus Curiae to help the Courtroom. Furthermore, there was a route to officers in command of the 4 zones, by way of which the 11.15 km lengthy canal runs, to make sure strict compliance with the earlier instructions of the Courtroom and to take measures to forestall the discharge of untreated liquid waste into the canal. The officers had been empowered to take motion in case of any deterrence. The Company was directed to convene a gathering of stakeholders to formulate a complete motion plan, together with short-term and long-term measures, for the right therapy and disposal of liquid waste, and stopping its discharge into the canal.

One other detailed interim order was handed by the Courtroom in March 2025 after contemplating three elements: cleansing of the canal, sustaining cleanliness and hygiene, and proscribing / stopping neighbourhood institutions from polluting it. The Courtroom recorded the submissions made by the respondents. The Company had submitted earlier than the Courtroom that desilting and cleansing of the canal can be accomplished by Could 31 and March 31 respectively.

The KSPCB had submitted that STPs are useful in lots of locations nevertheless it has recognized a number of institutions that didn’t functioning STPs and despatched present trigger notices to those in 2022. Nevertheless, no steps had been taken within the final three years to arrange STPs and the KSPCB didn’t observe up relating to the progress of the present trigger notices.

The Municipal Company additionally submitted that occupancy certificates given to institutions could be revoked if the situation of set up of STP will not be happy. Within the interim order, the Courtroom had said that KSPCB and the Firms will place on document how they intend to fulfil the statutory mandate, together with the cancellation of occupancy certificates, and place a time-bound motion plan.

Case Title: Suo Motu v. Company of Cochin & Ors. and Linked Case

Case No: WP(C) No. 40564 of 2022 and Linked Case

Counsels for the Respondents: Ok. Janardhana Shenoy – R1, T. Naveen – SC – Kerala State Air pollution Management Board, S.Biju, Senior Panel Counsel – R4, Kannan, Particular Authorities Pleader

Amicus Curiae – P. Ramakrishnan