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 noted that the notices issued by the Corporation suffer from fundamental errors since they do not mention the provisions of law under which action was taken.

“Why is that every time the Corporation always comes up with some fundamental mistakes here? We have written in our order what the position of law is… Now we are doubting the bona fides of this Corporation,” the Court orally observed.

The Court noted that the notices ought to have been issued as part of the statutory duties of the Corporation. Instead, the notices state that the same were issued pursuant to the interim order of the Court.

In the interim order, the Court had mentioned the statutory provisions that empower the Corporation to cancel the occupancy certificates of entities that do not have STPs and are functioning in violation of the conditions prescribed under Rule 19A(4) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019.

The Court had also directed the State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) to issue closure certificates to the errant entities.

Though remedial actions were taken, the Court noted that the Corporation had projected as if steps were taken at behest of Court orders and not under any statutory obligation.

“Again, we find that the approach of the Kochi Municipal Corporation are either out of complete ignorance of position of law or of recalcitrance…” the Court said in its order.

It also noted that the Secretary of the Corporation has either deliberately issued such notices or is under complete legal advice. Thus, it directed the Secretary to file an affidavit explaining his position.

The Pollution Control Board submitted that closure notices were issued to 88 units whereas closure intention notices were issued to 34 units. Upon hearing the same, the Court directed the Board to place on record the notices by way of additional affidavit during the course of the day itself.

The Court orally told the Corporation that unless proper action is taken, it would be constrained to pass drastic orders. The counsel for the Corporation submitted that revised notices would be sent.

The case is posted on next Thursday for further consideration.

Background

A suo motu public interest litigation was initiated by the High Court in December, 2022 on the basis of a news report, which stated that untreated liquid wastes from major flats and houses are being discharged into the Thevara-Perandoor Canal (TP Canal).

Subsequently, the Corporation filed an affidavit stating that a list of polluting flats had been prepared as per the direction of the NGT, notices had been sent out and an expert committee was constituted to monitor the same. The Environmental Engineer of the KSPCB filed affidavit stating that action plans had been formulated for the rejuvenation and prevention of contamination of five canals in Ernakulam city, including Edappally Canal, Thevara-Perandoor Canal, Chilavanoor Canal, Thevara Canal and, Market Canal.

In 2025, Adv. P. Ramakrishnan was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. Moreover, there was a direction to officers in charge of the four zones, through which the 11.15 km long canal runs, to ensure strict compliance with the previous directions of the Court and to take measures to prevent the discharge of untreated liquid waste into the canal. The officers were empowered to take action in case of any deterrence. The Corporation was directed to convene a meeting of stakeholders to formulate a comprehensive action plan, including short-term and long-term measures, for the proper treatment and disposal of liquid waste, and preventing its discharge into the canal.

Another detailed interim order was passed by the Court in March 2025 after considering three aspects: cleaning of the canal, maintaining cleanliness and hygiene, and restricting / preventing neighbourhood establishments from polluting it. The Court recorded the submissions made by the respondents. The Corporation had submitted before the Court that desilting and cleaning of the canal would be completed by May 31 and March 31 respectively.

The KSPCB had submitted that STPs are functional in many places but it has identified several establishments that did not functioning STPs and sent show cause notices to these in 2022. However, no steps were taken in the last three years to set up STPs and the KSPCB did not follow up regarding the progress of the show cause notices.

The Municipal Corporation also submitted that occupancy certificates given to establishments can be revoked if the condition of installation of STP is not satisfied. In the interim order, the Court had stated that KSPCB and the Corporations will place on record how they intend to fulfil the statutory mandate, including the cancellation of occupancy certificates, and place a time-bound action plan.

Case Title: Suo Motu v. Corporation of Cochin & Ors. and Connected Case

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

Counsels for the Respondents: K. Janardhana Shenoy - R1, T. Naveen – SC – Kerala State Pollution Control Board, S.Biju, Senior Panel Counsel - R4, Kannan, Special Government Pleader

Amicus Curiae - P. Ramakrishnan