[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Thrikkakara Municipality vs Paul Mecheril on 3 December, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2025:KER:92842
W.A.No.2585 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WA NO.2585 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2025 IN WP(C)NO.5012 OF 2025
OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4:
1 THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY
THRIKKAKARA ERNAKULAM REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 682021
2 THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
OFFICE OF THE THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY THRIKKAKARA
ERNAKULAM REP BY ITS PRESIDENT, PIN - 682021
BY ADV SRI.S.JAMAL, SC, THRIKKAKKARA MUNICIPALITY
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1, 2, 5 to 8:
1 PAUL MECHERIL, AGED 84 YEARS
CHIEF PATRON, THRIKKAKARA SAMSKARIKA KENDRAM,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI. S/O. LATE JOSEPH MECHERIL, MECHERIL
HOUSE, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682030
2 SALIM KUNNUPURAM, AGED 60 YEARS
PRESIDENT, THRIKKAKARA RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION APEX
COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF KUNNUMPURAM RESIDENTS'
ASSOCIATION, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI. S/O. AHAMMED
PILLAI, KUNNUPURATH HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O, KOCHI, PIN -
682030
3 SAYAJKHAN S, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. SAFARULLAKHAN, 11E, NOEL POETRY, MAVELIURAM,
KAKKANAD P.O, KOCHI, PIN - 682030
4 CIJU PRAKASAM, AGED 50 YEARS
SECRETARY, NOEL POETRY APARTMENT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION,
MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI. S/O. P.U. PRAKASAM,
13C, NOEL POETRY, MAVELIURAM, KAKKANAD P.O,
KOCHI, PIN - 682030
2025:KER:92842
W.A.No.2585 of 2025 2
5 VINOD K., AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. S. KRISHNA SARMA, 17C SKYLINE SPECTRA,
MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682030
6 SREEKUMAR V NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. K.K. VASU NAIR, 11E, SKYLINE SPECTRA,
MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682030
7 SIRAJUDEEN A, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL AZEES S., 16E, SKYLINE SPECTRA, MAVELIURAM,
KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682030
8 PRAVIN J.D., AGED 43 YEARS
SECRETARY, SKYLINE SPECTRA, KAKKANAD, KOCHI. S/O. A.
JOSEPH, 2B, SKYLINE SPECTRA, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD
P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682030
9 ROY JOSE, AGED 45 YEARS
TREASURER, SKYLINE SPECTRA, KAKKANAD, KOCHI. S/O. P.A.
JOSE, 3D, SKYLINE SPECTRA, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD P.O.,
KOCHI, PIN - 682030
10 SREEJU P SREEDHARAN, AGED 44 YEARS
PRESIDENT, TRANQUIL TOWERS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI. S/O. M.S.
PILLAI, TRANQUIL TOWERS, NEAR CIVIL STATION, SEAPORT
AIRPORT ROAD, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682030
11 JOSEPH M.M, AGED 57 YEARS
SECRETARY, TRANQUIL TOWERS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI. S/O. LATE
M.T. MATHEWS, TRANQUIL TOWERS, KAKKANAD,
KOCHI, PIN - 682030
12 MANU PHILIP GEORGE, AGED 57 YEARS
TREASURER, TRANQUIL TOWERS, KAKKANAD, KOCHI. S/O. LATE
GEORGE PHILIP, TRANQUIL TOWERS, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682030
13 MATHEW VARGHESE T, AGED 59 YEARS
PRESIDENT, GOOD EARTH HUES OF LIFE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI.
S/O. T.V. VARGHESE, 5C, GOOD EARTH HUES OF LIFE,
MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682030
14 SANJEEV JOSEPH SAMUEL, AGED 50 YEARS
SECRETARY, GOOD EARTH HUES OF LIFE, MAVELIPURAM,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI. S/O. LATE K.Y. SAMUEL, 4C, GOOD EARTH
HUES OF LIFE, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD,
KOCHI, PIN - 682030
15 PRABHAKAR R, AGED 75 YEARS
PRESIDENT, EV SINAI TOWER, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD,
2025:KER:92842
W.A.No.2585 of 2025 3
KOCHI. S/O. RAGHUNATH, 7C, EV SINAI TOWER,
MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682030
16 SIBITHA BABY, AGED 40 YEARS
SECRETARY, EV SINAI TOWER, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD,
KOCHI. D/O. K.P. BABY, 3C, EV SINAI TOWER,
MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682030
17 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
18 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682030
19 SUCHITWA MISSION,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, PANAVILA JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
20 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PLAMOOD, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PIN - 695004
21 VILLAGE OFFICER,
KAKKANAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682030
22 KERALA ENVIRO INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,
TSDF PROJECT, DIVISION CAMPUS, AMBALAMEDU, KOCHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PIN -
682303
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)
SRI. C. E. UNNIKRISHNAN, SPL. GP
SRI.T. NAVEEN, SC, KSPCB
SRI. BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
SRI. VISHNU BHUVANEDRAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.10.2025,
THE COURT ON 03.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:92842
W.A.No.2585 of 2025 4
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellants are respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.5012
of 2025, which was one filed by respondents 1 to 16-petitioners,
invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10
order dated 30.10.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent District
Collector; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 4,
namely, District Collector, Thrikkakkara Municipality and
Thrikkakkara Municipal Council, to follow the directions issued and
the undertaking given in Ext.P1 judgment dated 17.06.1999 in
W.A.No.1170 of 1999 of this Court pertaining to the establishment
of Municipal Solid Waste Management and Processing Site strictly,
as well as the distance criteria prescribed in Ext.P7 norms issued
by the 6th respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board dated
02.03.2023; a writ of mandamus commanding the Thrikkakkara
Municipality to strictly follow the direction issued by the 1 st
respondent State of Kerala in Ext.P8 Government order dated
25.05.2025 and Ext.P9 Guidelines, which form part of Ext.P8, and
remove the entire quantity of municipal solid waste piled
2025:KER:92842
up/deposited by Thrikkakkara Municipality from the present
dumping site, which is situated very close to the Co-operative
Hospital, Kakkanad.
2. In W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025, the 3rd respondent
Thrikkakkara Municipality filed a statement dated 19.02.2025,
producing therewith Annexures R3(a) and R3(b) documents. The
2nd respondent District Collector has filed a counter affidavit dated
01.03.2025 in W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025, producing therewith
Annexures R2(a) and R2(b) documents.
3. On 10.10.2025, when the writ petition came up for
consideration, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order
staying Ext.P10 order dated 30.10.2024 and restraining the 3rd
respondent Thrikkakkara Municipality from starting a waste
management plant in any other area other than the area that is
covered under Ext.P1 judgment dated 17.06.1999 in W.A.No.1170
of 1999. In the said order, it was made clear that it would be up
to the Municipality to seek modification of its own undertaking,
which is recorded in Ext.P1 judgment. Paragraphs 2 to 5 and also
the last paragraph of the order dated 10.10.2025 read thus;
"2. The petitioners' case is that, in Ext.P1 judgment dated
17.06.1999, this Court had recorded the explicit
2025:KER:92842
undertaking of the 3rd respondent-Municipality that they
would purchase a property under the 3rd Peoples' plan
Programme for 1999-2000 and construct a modern garbage
treatment plant and slaughter house within six months from
the date of judgment. Notwithstanding the said
undertaking, the Municipality has not moved its little finger
to establish the said garbage treatment plant. Instead, now
by Ext.P10 order, they propose to start a garbage treatment
plant in a totally different locality in violation of their
undertaking made before this Court.
3. In the statement filed by the 3rd respondent it is stated
that, even though 50 cents of land was purchased at Ward
No.6 at Vanachira to start the solid waste treatment plant
for the Municipality, pursuant to its undertaking recorded in
Ext.P1 judgment, later it was found that the property is a
paddy land and needs to be filled up, to make it suitable for
constructing the waste treatment plant. Besides that, there
was a stiff resistance from the people of the locality from
constructing the waste treatment plant. Meanwhile, in 2006,
the Panchayat became a Municipality and the population in
the Municipal area increased. Among the population, a large
number of people have neither own land nor residential
buildings. This prompted the Municipality to include the 50
cents of land under the Life Mission Project and construct a
residential building complex at free of cost. Accordingly, the
Municipal Council, by its decision dated 10.2.2015, has
decided to construct a flat in the said property.
4. A reading of the above statement reveals that the 3 rd
respondent has not kept upto its undertaking made before
2025:KER:92842
this Court as early as on 17.06.1999. Even though the
Municipality had acquired the property for the said purpose,
they slept over it for the last 25 years. It is mysterious how
the Municipality has disposed the solid waste over the years.
5. Now, the Municipality wants to take a volte face and start
a waste treatment plant in another locality covered under
Ext.P10 order. As long as the undertaking made by the
Municipality before this Court remains on paper, I am of the
definite view that the Municipality cannot take a different
stand.
In the above said circumstances, I am satisfied that the
petitioners have made out a prima facie case for an interim
order. Hence, I stay Ext.P10 order and restrain the 3rd
respondent from starting a waste management plant in any
other area other than the area that covered under Ext.P1
judgment. Nevertheless, it would be upto the Municipality
to seek for modification of its own undertaking which is
recorded in Ext.P1 judgment."
4. Feeling aggrieved by the interim order dated
10.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.5012 of
2025, the appellants-respondents 3 and 4 are before this Court in
this writ appeal invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
5. On 27.10.2025, when this writ appeal came up for
admission, the learned Special Government Pleader sought time
to make available for the perusal of this Court a copy of the sketch
2025:KER:92842
and mahazar referred to in Ext.P10 proceedings dated 30.10.2024
of the District Collector. The learned Standing Counsel for
Thrikkakkara Municipality was directed to make available for the
perusal of this Court a location sketch or aerial photograph of the
property referred to in Ext.P10 proceedings dated 30.10.2024 of
the District Collector and also that of the property covered by
Ext.P2 sale deed.
6. On 31.10.2025, when this writ appeal came up for
consideration along with a memo dated 30.10.2025 filed by the
learned Standing Counsel for Thrikkakkara Municipality, aerial
photographs of the property referred to in Ext.P10 proceedings
dated 30.10.2024 of the District Collector and the property
referred to in Ext.P1 judgment, which is covered by Ext.P2 sale
deed, are placed on record. The learned Special Government
Pleader has made available for the perusal of this Court a report
dated 26.10.2024 of the Village Officer, Kakkanad, along with the
sketch.
7. We heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 16-
petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader for
2025:KER:92842
respondents 17 to 19 and 21, the learned Standing Counsel for
Kerala State Pollution Control Board for the 20 th respondent and
also the learned counsel for the 22nd respondent.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
contended that the interim order dated 10.10.2025 of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025 is contrary to facts, law
and materials on record. On account of the interim order, two
welfare projects of the Municipality, which are in the process of
being set up by utilising public funds, are stalled. One project is to
alleviate housing needs of the poorer sections of society, and the
other is to establish a bio-degradable solid waste treatment plant.
The interim order passed by the learned Single Judge affects the
substantial rights of the appellant, and hence an intra-court appeal
is maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.
The learned Senior Counsel would submit that, as undertaken in
the statement filed in W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025, the Municipality
will install a solid waste treatment plant on the property covered
by Ext.P10 Government order, only after obtaining the consent of
the 6th respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board, strictly
following the conditions stipulated by the Board.
2025:KER:92842
9. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit
that, as stated in the counter affidavit dated 01.03.2025 filed in
W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025 by the 2nd respondent District Collector,
Thrikkakkara Municipality made an application on 22.03.2024,
along with Suchitwa Mission, for allotting the land in question for
establishing a solid waste treatment plant. The Revenue
Department, vide G.O.(Ms.)No.186/2023/RD dated 03.08.2023,
recommended that the property can be allotted to the Municipality.
The final decision on the suitable technology and the implementing
agency for establishing a solid waste treatment plant on the
property covered by Ext.P10 Government order has not been
finalised, and a report on technical aspects can be given only after
a final decision is taken.
10. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State
Pollution Control Board would submit that Thrikkakkara
Municipality is yet to submit a proposal before the Board for prior
consent to establish a solid waste treatment plant on the property
covered by Ext.P10 Government order. As stated in Ext.R2(b)
letter dated 25.02.2025 of the Environment Engineer of the Board,
addressed to the District Collector, when such a proposal is
2025:KER:92842
received, the Board shall verify the same and issue the consent to
establish if the proposed site complies with the distance criteria
and is found to be suitable for establishing a solid waste treatment
plant. Before granting consent to establish, the Board has to
ensure that the proposed solid waste treatment plant complies
with the distance criteria and adequate pollution control
measures.
11. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 16-
petitioners contended that the interim order dated 10.10.2025 of
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025 warrants no
interference in this intra-court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of
the Kerala High Court Act. When 50 cents of land was purchased
by the erstwhile Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat at Ward No.6 of
Vanachira, vide Ext.P2 sale deed was for the purpose of
establishing a solid waste treatment plant, as undertaken before
this Court in the year 1999, as evident from Ext.P1 judgment
dated 17.06.1999 in W.A.No.1170 of 1999, the learned Single
Judge cannot be found fault with in granting an interim order
staying the operation of Ext.P10 order dated 30.10.2024 of the
District Collector and restraining Thrikkakkara Municipality from
2025:KER:92842
establishing a solid waste treatment plant in any area other than
the area referred to in Ext.P1 judgment, i.e., the property covered
by Ext.P2 sale deed. The property referred to in Ext.P10
proceedings dated 30.10.2024 of the District Collector is not
suitable for setting up a solid waste treatment plant. The learned
counsel for the 22nd respondent has also advanced the very same
contentions.
12. The photographs of (i) the property referred to in
Ext.P10 proceedings dated 30.10.2024 of the District Collector
and (ii) the property referred to in Ext.P1 judgment, which is
covered by Ext.P2 document, are extracted hereunder;
(i) the property referred to in Ext.P10 proceedings dated 30.10.2024
2025:KER:92842
(ii) the property referred to in Ext.P1 judgment, which is covered by Ext.P2 document
13. In the statement dated 19.02.2025 filed in
W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025, by the 3rd respondent Thrikkakkara
Municipality, it is stated that the 50 cents of land referred to in
Ext.P1 judgment dated 17.06.1999 was purchased by the
erstwhile Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat at Ward No:6 at
Vanachira, vide Ext.P2 document No.342/2000 of the Sub
Registrar Office, Thrikkakkara, to install and implement solid
waste treatment plant. However, the said land is a paddy land,
which needs to be filled with a large quantity of earth to make use
of the land for a solid waste treatment plant. There was stiff
resistance from the people residing within a 100-meter distance
to the construction of a solid waste treatment plant at Vanachira.
2025:KER:92842
In the year 2006, the Grama Panchayath became a Municipality.
The population in the Municipal area increased steeply. Among the
population, a large sector of people has neither land nor a
residential building of their own. This prompted the Municipal
Council to include the said 50 cents of land at Vanachira under the
Life Mission Project to construct a residential building complex,
free of cost. Accordingly, the Municipal Council, vide Annexure
R3(a) Decision No:9 dated 10.2.2015, decided to construct a flat
in the said property and sought permission of the State
Government. The Government, vide Annexure R3(b) order dated
07.07.2015, granted permission to the Municipality to utilise the
said 50 cents of land to construct a residential building complex
(Flat) as part of redressing the common issue of landless and
residence-less people in the Municipal area.
13.1. In the said statement it is stated that the puramboke
land covered in Ext.P10 proceedings dated 30.10.2024 of the 2 nd
respondent District Collector, in favour of the Local Self
Government Department, to install and implement a solid waste
treatment plant for the Municipality, in association with the 5 th
respondent Suchitwa Mission, because the Municipality has no
2025:KER:92842
land of its own to install a solid waste treatment plant. In the
statement filed in W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025, the 3rd respondent
Municipality has undertaken that it will install a solid waste
treatment plant on the property covered by Ext.P10 Government
order, only after obtaining the consent of the 6th respondent Kerala
State Pollution Control Board, by strictly following the conditions
stipulated by the Board. The distance between the residential
buildings of the petitioners and the site for the proposed solid
waste treatment plant has also been stated in paragraph 4 of the
statement filed in W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025 by the 3 rd respondent
Municipality, which ranges from 130 meters to 300 meters.
13.2. In the statement filed in W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025 by
the 3rd respondent Municipality, it is stated that the solid waste
management rules are framed in exercise of the powers conferred
under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986. Under the
provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, environmental
issues and matters coming under Schedule I of the said Act should
be instituted and litigated only before the National Green Tribunal.
On the maintainability of the writ petition, it is pointed out that,
going by the averment in the writ petition, environmental issues
2025:KER:92842
are involved, and there is violation of the provisions of the Rules
framed under the Environment Protection Act, which is an
enactment included in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal
Act. The decision of the Apex Court in Bhopal Gas Peedith
Mahila Udyog Sangathan v. Union of India [(2012) 8 SCC
326], is also relied on, wherein it is held that environmental issues
and matters covered under Schedule I of the National Green
Tribunal Act should be instituted only before the National Green
Tribunal.
14. In the counter affidavit dated 01.03.2025 filed in
W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025 by the 2nd respondent District Collector, it
is stated that 8.50 Ares of puramboke land in Block No.9
Re.Sy.No.327/1 of Kakkanad Village in Kanayannur Taluk was
transferred to Thrikkakkara Municipality, by keeping the ownership
of the land with the Department of Revenue and subject to the
conditions mentioned in that order, for the purpose of establishing
a solid waste treatment plant by the Municipality, after getting
consent from the Revenue Department. As evident from Ext.R2(a)
letter dated 25.02.2025 of the District Coordinator, Suchitwa
Mission, Ernakulam, a final decision on the suitable technology and
2025:KER:92842
implementing agency for establishing solid waste treatment plant
by Thrikkakkara Municipality is not finalised and that, a report on
technical aspects can be given only after a final decision is taken.
The Environmental Engineer in the District Office of the Kerala
State Pollution Control Board, vide Ext.R2(b) letter dated
25.02.2025 informed the Thrikkakkara Municipality that the Board
has revised the criteria for setting up solid waste treatment plant
and the minimum distance required for the plant having a capacity
of 5 TPD to 30 TPD to the nearest residence is 20 meters and the
minimum set back required is 3 meters. The Municipality has not
submitted any proposal to the Pollution Control Board to obtain
prior consent to establish, for setting up solid waste treatment
plant in the property covered by Ext.P10 order dated 30.10.2024.
15. Though the learned counsel on both sides have
addressed arguments on the distance criteria and other
requirements for establishing a solid waste treatment plant as per
the prevailing norms prescribed by the State Pollution Control
Board, we do not propose to consider the rival contentions on the
above aspect in this writ appeal, since the challenge made is
against an interim order dated 10.10.2025 in W.P.(C)No.5012 of
2025:KER:92842
2025 and that writ petition is pending consideration before the
learned Single Judge. Therefore, the rival contentions on the
above aspect are left open to be raised before the learned Single
Judge, at the appropriate stage.
16. The property purchased by the erstwhile Thrikkakkara
Grama Panchayat in the year 2000, as per Ext.P2 document dated
26.02.2000 is on the side of 6 meter width Vanachira road. The
specific contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for
Thrikkakkara Municipality is that the said property is more suitable
for residential habitat and hence, by Annexure R3(b) order dated
07.07.2015, the Government granted permission to construct
residential apartments in that property, to alleviate the issue of
poorer strata of persons in the Municipality, belonging to general
and scheduled caste sections. The issue that was considered by
this Court in Ext.P1 judgment dated 17.06.1999 in W.A.No.1170
of 1999 was as to whether the action of the erstwhile Thrikkakkara
Grama Panchayat in dumping solid waste, causing nuisance was
justifiable or not. The stand taken by the Grama Panchayat, before
the Division Bench, was that they are taking steps to establish a
modern garbage treatment plant and slaughter house. Though it
2025:KER:92842
was stated that the land for the said purpose was identified, there
was no undertaking or any direction by this Court in Ext.P1
judgment that such a garbage treatment plant and slaughter
house has to be established in the said land itself. As pointed out
by the learned Senior Counsel, as a matter of fact, the erstwhile
Grama Panchayat obtained title over the said land only subsequent
to Ext.P1 judgment. Though an attempt was made to establish the
garbage treatment plant and slaughter house in that property,
there was widespread protest by the local residents and therefore,
the erstwhile Grama Panchayat could not proceed with the
construction.
17. A reading of Ext.P1 judgment would show that, after
considering the submissions made at the Bar, the Division Bench
opined that it should give some time to the erstwhile Thrikkakkara
Grama Panchayat to complete the construction of a modern
garbage treatment plant and slaughter house, utilising the amount
set apart for that purpose from the third Peoples' Plan Programme
for 1999-2000. For completing the construction of the garbage
treatment plant and slaughter house, six months' time was
granted to the erstwhile Grama Panchayat, from the date of Ext.P1
2025:KER:92842
judgment. Till such time, the Grama Panchayat was directed to
dump the solid waste and dispose of the same, scientifically, in
trenches and the Division Bench ordered that the waste should be
covered daily with red earth.
18. The pleadings and materials on record would show that
nothing transpired after Ext.P1 judgment dated 17.06.1999 in
W.A.No.1170 of 1999 for establishing a garbage treatment plant
and slaughter house in Ward No.6 of Vanachira, though the
property having an extent of 50 cents was purchased by the
erstwhile Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat vide Ext.P2 sale deed
dated 26.02.2000. As evident from the photograph of the said
land, produced along with the memo dated 30.10.2025 filed by
the learned Standing Counsel for Thrikkakkara Municipality, it is a
paddy land, which is not suitable for establishing a solid waste
treatment plant.
19. Instead of a garbage treatment plant and slaughter
house, Thrikkakkara Municipality proposes to establish a solid
waste treatment plant in the property referred to in Ext.P10
proceedings. We also notice that the permission granted by the
State Government, vide Annexure R3(b) order dated 07.07.2015,
2025:KER:92842
to Thrikkakkara Municipality to utilise the said 50 cents of land to
construct a residential building complex (flat) as part of redressing
the common issue of landless and residence-less people in the
Municipal area, is not under challenge in the writ petition. It is
made clear that this Court is not expressed anything as to whether
the construction of a residential building complex (flat) is legally
permissible in the property covered by Ext.P2 sale deed, since it
is lying as a paddy land.
20. In K. S. Das v. State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 358],
the Larger Bench held that the word 'order' in Section 5(i) of the
Kerala High Court Act includes, apart from other orders, orders
passed by the High Court in miscellaneous petitions filed in the
writ petitions provided the orders are to be in force pending the
writ petition. An appeal would lie against such orders only if the
orders substantially affect or touch upon the substantial rights or
liabilities of the parties or are matters of moment and cause
substantial prejudice to the parties. The nature of the 'order'
appealable belongs to the category of 'intermediate orders'
referred to by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. State of
Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551]. The word 'order' is not
2025:KER:92842
confined to 'final order' which disposes of the writ petition. The
'orders' should not however, be ad-interim orders in force pending
the miscellaneous petition or orders merely of a procedural nature.
21. In Thomas P. T. and another v. Bijo Thomas and
others [2021 (6) KLT 196], a Division Bench of this Court
noticed that the view that was upheld by the Larger Bench in K.S.
Das [1992 (2) KLT 358] was that even though an appeal could
be filed against an interlocutory order passed in a writ petition, in
order to be qualified for challenge in an appeal, the order shall be
either substantially affecting or touching upon the substantial
rights or liabilities of the parties or which are matters of moment
and cause substantial prejudice to the parties. According to the
Larger Bench, the nature of the order appealable belongs to the
category of intermediate orders referred to by the Apex Court in
Madhu Limaye [(1977) 4 SCC 551]. It was, however, clarified
by the Larger Bench that such orders should not, however, be ad
interim orders or orders merely of a procedural nature.
22. The impugned order dated 10.10.2025 of the learned
Single Judge affects the substantial rights of the Municipality and
hence it is an order appealable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala
2025:KER:92842
High Court Act, 1958. In the above circumstances, we find no
reason to sustain the finding of the learned Single Judge in the
impugned order dated 10.10.2025 in W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025
that, as long as the undertaking made by the erstwhile
Thrikkakkara Grama Panchayat before this Court at the time of
disposal of W.A.No.1170 of 1999, vide Ext.P1 judgment dated
17.06.1999 remains, the Municipality cannot take a stand that it
will establish a solid waste treatment plant in any property other
than the property covered by Ext.P2 sale deed.
23. As already noticed hereinbefore, Thrikkakkara
Municipality is yet to submit a proposal before the State Pollution
Control Board for obtaining prior consent to establish for
establishing a solid waste treatment plant in the property covered
by Ext.P10 order dated 30.10.2024 of the District Collector. Since
it is a time consuming process, instead of staying the operation of
Ext.P10 order dated 30.10.2024 and restraining the Municipality
from establishing a solid waste treatment plant in the said
property, the learned Single Judge ought to have permitted the
Municipality to proceed with the process of obtaining prior consent
to establish the solid waste treatment plant in that property, by
2025:KER:92842
approaching the State Pollution Control Board, subject to the
condition that any construction in the property shall be made only
after obtaining prior orders in the pending writ petition.
In such circumstances, this writ appeal is disposed of by
setting aside the order dated 10.10.2025 of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C)No.5012 of 2025 and modifying the said order to
the extent indicated hereinbefore.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
bkn/-
