N.B. Vijayakumar, Partner, Hotel Sreedevi, Chottanikkara and Others vs State of Kerala and Others

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1.These matters are filed by some hoteliers of Chottanikkara. WPC.No.33842 of 2011 was one taken up along with DBA.No.56 of 2011 which also raised issues of waste management of Chottanikkara temple. Today, we have issued a separate order adjourning DBA.No.56 of 2011. That requires separate consideration in the light of some of the inputs that are yet to come from the Learned Ombudsman and suggestions through the Cochin Devaswom Board regarding the availability of a sponsor to put a waste treatment system for the Chottanikkara temple in place. Now, reverting to the captioned matters, WPC.No.33842 of 2011 was filed in the wake of the stand taken by the LSGI concerned requiring the hoteliers to close down the hotels within 24 hours on grounds referable to allegations of draining impermissible water and other waste into public drain. We found that the learned Ombudsman for LSGIs had issued Ext.P1 order. Therefore, we focused on that aspect of the matter and directed as an interim measure to obtain obedience to those directions. With the passage of time, the outlets of the hotels are pipes having diameter of 4 inches thereby complying with the directions of the learned Ombudsman.

The fact of the matter appears to be that the public drain will appear to carry different waste materials, though in liquid form. We are not affirming that stand of the LSGI but would reiterate that public drain should carry only water and such other fluids which are permitted in terms of the law governing the management of the public drains. In the normal course, it is used to drain out rain water and other accumulations from natural sources from within the limits of the local area. The outlets coming from any house or other occupied premises would also be permitted to be drained only through regulated conditions. With that, we are clear in our mind that the management of the flow of water from the hotels through the drains is an issue that falls exclusively within the domain of the field occupied by laws governing LSGI and public health. This issue can be sorted out before the learned Ombudsman for the LSGIs, since we see that Ext.P1 order was issued at an earlier point of time acting on the complaint of mismanagement of the system in that area.

WPC.No.13517 of 2012 has been filed in the wake of the insistence of the LSGI that the hotels would be permitted to be reopened only on production of sanitation certificate and the District Medical Officer refusing to grant sanitation certificate. The authority to issue sanitation certificate is with the DMO. That authority has to be satisfied of the fact that necessary conditions as to sanitation are in place in terms of the laws. If the petitioners have any complaint about that aspect of the matter, they would be well advised to take statutory remedies against such decision either of the DMO or the LSGI concerned, before the competent authority. We are also told that there was some search and seizure from the premises of the hotels and certain prosecutions have been initiated by registering first information reports for offences punishable under the Public Health Act. That is also a matter that has to be taken care in appropriate jurisdictions.

With the aforesaid, we also record the submission on behalf of the hoteliers that there is some controversy as to how the waste water from the hotels will have to be managed. It is stated that one of the hoteliers had put up a sock pit which, with the passage of time, overflowed and demonstrated that the said suggestion is not conducive to local conditions. It is also submitted that some of the hoteliers have the entire land occupied by the buildings and there is lack of space to have sock pits. These are matters to be taken up and dealt with either at the level of the LSGI concerned or the DMO concerned or the Executive Engineer of the PWD. We, therefore, direct the parties to move the RDO having jurisdiction over the area who will immediately require the Executive Engineer concerned to suggest needful measures. For this purpose, the procedure adopted by this Court following the earlier interim orders passed in WP(C).No.33842 of 2011 shall be treated as guidance by the RDO. Since the matter relates to draining out waste water and there is some urgency for the hoteliers, the RDO concerned will consider taking up any request for interlocutory orders for immediate and temporary management of the issue. Till such time, the order not to close down the hotels on the ground of draining of water into the public drain in terms of the earlier orders shall continue. It is clarified that this will not affect the requirement of production of sanitation certificate or any other requirement to run the hotels or proceedings taken under the Public Health Act. These writ petitions are ordered in terms of the aforesaid without entering on merits and leaving the parties to appropriate jurisdictions, in accordance with law.