Judgment :- Ramachandran, J. The above writ petitions were heard together and the leading case (WPC 30482 of 2003) is the one filed by a local authority – Mananthavady Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary. The facts of the other connected cases could be taken notice of after referring to the claims and contentions of the Grama Panchayat and the principal issue concerns about the installation of wasted disposal arrangements, its location, nature thereof, and other attendant circumstances. 2. Originally, the writ petition was filed as one for commanding the police officers, namely respondents 1 to 3, to assist the Panchayat by rendering necessary assistance to transport the solid waste collected from the Mananthavady town area and for facilitation disposal of the same in Yard belonging to the Panchayat. According to the Panchayat, they have extensive properties under their control and possession in R.S.No.268 of Mananthavady Village and this would have been ideal for the purpose. However, respondents 5 and 6, who are public spirited persons mustering support of others, were preventing transportation of the waste and the Panchayat was put to a position of embarrassment. Under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, it is the duty of the Panchayat to collect and dispose of Municipal waste and while engaged in such lawful activities, in case of prevention the police had a statutory duty to help them. However, in spite of request being made, help was not forthcoming and intervention of the Court was therefore solicited. 3. Mr. M. Sasindran, appearing for the petitioner, gave in detail the background in which the writ petition was filed. For over a considerable number of Years, without any problems or objections, a large extent of land situated at Thazhayangadi was being used as dumping ground of wastes collected. However, it belonged to the 7th respondent—Kerala State Housing Board. But some time in 2002 the Housing Board requested the Panchayat to discontinue such activities as there was a proposal for putting up a Housing Colony there. The panchayat was therefore constrained to seek for an alternate site. However, it belonged to the 7th respondent—Kerala State Housing Board. But some time in 2002 the Housing Board requested the Panchayat to discontinue such activities as there was a proposal for putting up a Housing Colony there. The panchayat was therefore constrained to seek for an alternate site. Because of the introduction of Municipal Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred as Handling Rules) the Panchayat was statutorily bound to adopt scientific waste management methods and taking notice of the circumstances that they had in possession of about 4.75 acres of land at Choottakadavu, situated less than one kilometer away from the town, steps had been envisaged for installation of Waste Treatment Yard. This was approved by the District Medical Officer. The rules envisage for concurrence of the Pollution Control Board and due applications had been submitted, and as could be seen from Ext.P2, on condition that stringent norms should be observed, the Pollution Control Board had authorized to set up and operate waste processing and waste disposal facility in Sy.No.131 in Block No.26 of the Village. This was on 12-07-2002. the validity of authorization was up to 31.03.2003, renewable. Ext.P2 also gave in detail the conditions to be observed, as postulated by the handling Rules. 4. Steps were in progress, and pits had been dug, but in the meanwhile, obstructions from various quarters had arisen. In fact, the Panchayat had sanctioned the proposal as approved by the District planning Committee and a project approved by an Export Body was to be implemented. They had received also technical sanction and a Society had been formed for implementation of the project. But an original Petition had been filed as O.P.No.30399 of 2002 challenging the setting up of the project. In view of the interim orders, the work was disrupted. The panchayat too had this writ petition almost simultaneously seeking police protection. This was because waste collected from the Panchayat area had to be deposited, on a temporary measure, and dumping was arranged to be carried out in the Panchayat property at Choottakadavu. This was prevented by us of force by persons in the locality. 5. By an interim order in I.A.No.10061 of 2003 in O.P.No.30399/2002, this Court had ordered that the panchayat is not to dump waste materials within a distance of 20 cents from the residential area of the petitioners. This was prevented by us of force by persons in the locality. 5. By an interim order in I.A.No.10061 of 2003 in O.P.No.30399/2002, this Court had ordered that the panchayat is not to dump waste materials within a distance of 20 cents from the residential area of the petitioners. But, by a common interim order dated 10-02-2004, passed in the two cases, Court had permitted the Panchayat to begin the work of the Treatment Plants, and the application for extension of Ext.P2 permission had been filed before the pollution Control Board. 6. But because of an ex parte order, passed in W.P.(C).No.26747 of 2004, filed by a local resident Mariam, the project could not be continued. The Panchayat was not even heard. The Division Bench, on 13-09-2004 directed the pollution Control Board to look into the grievances submitted by her, and pass orders, before the renewal of sanction of Ext.P2, at the request of the panchayat, was considered. The panchayat has a complaint that although clarificatory orders had been passed by the High Court, whereby the Panchayat would have been enabled to carry on with their work, overlooking the above, the Pollution Control Board had adopted a non-helpful attitude. However, the indiscretion as above is not highlighted, as the Board had the authority of the judgment justifying its enquiry and decision. This Court in I.A.No.1405 of 2005 in this writ petition, taking notice of the development, had directed that the Pollution Control Board is to examine the application de novo and also to take notice of the alternate suggestions about the site, which could have been utilized for the waste disposal activities with less disturbance to the community life of the panchayat. 7. The Board had held that in accordance with the guidelines, which were to be followed, the property owned by one M.C. Ittan in Resurvey No.89/18A1P3/B of the panchayat is the most suitable site among 11 sites inspected. As a consequence, the request of the Panchayat for extension of the period for installation of the Plant at Choottakadavu, sanctioned by Ext.P.2, stood rejected. This is Ext.P14 dated 20.06.2005. The pollution Control Board had directed that the Panchayat is to take steps for getting possession of the identified property of Sri. M.C. Ittan for the purpose of establishing the waste treatment-cum-disposal plant forthwith. This is Ext.P14 dated 20.06.2005. The pollution Control Board had directed that the Panchayat is to take steps for getting possession of the identified property of Sri. M.C. Ittan for the purpose of establishing the waste treatment-cum-disposal plant forthwith. It is offered that the Board will give all technical assistance and co-operation for setting up of the project, and necessary application for getting authorization was to be filed. The order indicates that this was after extensive local inspection, and public hearing. 8. The petitioner had been unhappy about the change of the events and the writ petition has been amended so as to incorporate additional prayers for quashing Ext.P14 and for directing the Pollution Control Board to reconsider the Matter, as establishment of a disposal plant in the property owned and occupied by them was expedient and should have been permitted to be used for such purpose. 9. With reference to the local inspection conducted by the Pollution Control Board, Mr. Sasindran points out that the property of the Panchayat at Choottakadavu was never found as unsuitable. Altogether 11 sites were visited and according to the pollution control Board the property owned by Sri. M.C. Ittan was most suitable. Counsel submits that the impractical nature of the suggestion had been overlooked by the Pollution Control Board, namely that the property did not even belong to Mr. Ittan, and the owners had not shown their readiness to surrender the property. It was far away. There was strong protest from residents of colonies nearby the site. Primarily, it was not accessible by any road. On the other hand, when the panchayat owned properties, which were otherwise fit for installation of the plant, and when by Ext.P2 earlier it had been found an acceptable, worthwhile reasons were not given so as to hold as to why this would have been unfit. As a matter of fact, with reference to the report, the counsel submits that there was not finding that the place was unfit, but the suggestion was that another property was more suitable. Referring to the order, it is submitting that the reasons given for rejecting the request for extension were bereft of factual basis and the three conditions, which the Board found as impossible of compliance, were in fact circumstances which could have been appropriately tackled. Referring to the order, it is submitting that the reasons given for rejecting the request for extension were bereft of factual basis and the three conditions, which the Board found as impossible of compliance, were in fact circumstances which could have been appropriately tackled. If so viewed, it was the most acceptable site and consequently Ext.P.14 deserves to be set aside with appropriate follow up directions permitting the panchayat to proceed in the matter, as it was highly essential that solid waste was to be disposed of. The arrangements presently adopted had completely broken down and the life of residents in the panchayat was becoming miserable. 10. At the request of the panchayat, this Court had appointed two Commissioners for examining certain disputed facts, as also the workability of the proposal and the possible adverse health factors, which had been suggested by the party respondents against implementation of the project at Choottakadavu. 11. A comprehensive report had forthcome, which could be relied on since an authentic study appears to have been carried out by the Commissioner. However, the matter has to be dealt with in the background of the prescriptions of the Handling Rules. 12. The learned standing counsel for the kerala Pollution Control Board submits that reliance cannot be made on Ext.P2 approval, initially granted by the Board. At that time, there was no in-depth study. There were objections forthcoming from the residents about the project and this had prompted them to go in for more details. It is pointed out that the Panchayat is bound to bear in mind the parameters laid down by the Handling Rules. The project should not have been objectionable for the general public, nor should it have created any health hazard. Choottakadavu was an area on the banks of a major river (Kabani). There was a risk of pollution and contamination of water by the proximity of a waster processing plant. This would have adversely affected the health and living conditions of the general public. The properties of Mr. Ittan was situated away from habitation and a plant there would have been least objectionable. As a public authority, it would have been appropriate for the panchayat to take steps for acquisition of the property and it would have been better suited as a long range waste disposal plant. The adamant attitude was against larger interests of general public. 13. Ittan was situated away from habitation and a plant there would have been least objectionable. As a public authority, it would have been appropriate for the panchayat to take steps for acquisition of the property and it would have been better suited as a long range waste disposal plant. The adamant attitude was against larger interests of general public. 13. Relying on the report of the Commissioners, the Panchayat submits that the property at Choottakadavu could not have been considered as unfit, especially, when the proposal was to install a treatment plant, which ensures zero emission levels. The pollution Control Board had three objections about the site, namely (1) that it was closely situated to a river; (2) that there were residential houses within 50 meters of the proposed area and (3) that it was inaccessible during monsoon period and there was likelihood of water-logging. It is submitted that this was a lop-sided view, and even if it had substance, in view of the very many other positive factors those could be overlooked. 14. Mr. Sasindran submits that the property earmarked for the Plant was away from the river banks. Property was extensive, comprising of about six acres and the proposed plant would not have contributed to direct or indirect river pollution. Supplemental to 4.75 acres originally possessed, adjacent thereto additionally two acres of waste land had been purchased. It is pointed out that the Commissioner’s report indicated the area as lying on an average of 4 to 10 meters higher than the river level and there was no threat of flooding. There was only one house within 50 meters of the area and the occupant (additional 9th respondent) could have been appropriately rehabilitated at the expense of the panchayat. Therefore, the objections had no factual basis and as a matter of fact there was bias shown in favour of the alternate site suggested by Ext.P14. 15. In respect of the alternate site, it was submitted that it was inaccessible. The panchayat had to spend money for acquiring the property. It was far away and there were objections from the residents of the colony situated nearby. When properties were held by the panchayat it could have been profitable used. 15. In respect of the alternate site, it was submitted that it was inaccessible. The panchayat had to spend money for acquiring the property. It was far away and there were objections from the residents of the colony situated nearby. When properties were held by the panchayat it could have been profitable used. The pollution Control Board erred in coming to the conclusion that better sites were available, but simultaneously it was significant that there was never a finding that the site at Choottakadavu was unsuitable. 16. Advertence was also made to the report of the Commissioners, which indicated that aerobic composting by window system was a satisfactory method, which was operational in the Chalakkudy Municipality, Aerobic composting and Vermi composting were the two systems recommended for biodegradable solid waste, and after the installation of the aerobic composting, vermin composting also could have been used. The counsel submits that the system was hygienic and principal advantage was that there was no possibility of any seepage. The processes were being carried out in large concrete tanks. The marginal water produced was to escape through a channel to a soak pit and this also had no possibility of being source of any contamination. The compost formed could have been profitably used as manure and the proximity of water logged area or river was not a health hazard as the system was adequately insulated and protected. Mr. Sasindran referred to an instance pointed out by the Commissioners viz., that at Chalakkudy there was a well in the self same compound of the treatment yard and potable water could be drawn from that well. Therefore, according to him, there has been no real application of mind and the pollution Control Board had swayed on a wrong direction because of pressure being applied from interested quarters. 17. It is further submitted that when Ext.P2 sanction was there, with particular reference to the Handling Rules, only because of the objection by a single individual, there was not justification for directing the project to be scrapped altogether. Transportation facilities, proximity and all other relevant parameters supported the cause of the panchayat. Its property could be developed within a set time limit as the need was pressing and there was no time to lose by further negotiations or deliberations. 18. Transportation facilities, proximity and all other relevant parameters supported the cause of the panchayat. Its property could be developed within a set time limit as the need was pressing and there was no time to lose by further negotiations or deliberations. 18. Although the argument was impressive, we have to take into consideration some other relevant aspects as well, as the Standing Counsel for the pollution Control Board pointed out. The opinion of the panchayat, of course has its own weight, but at least after the advent of the Handling Rules, it has to give way to the opinion of the experts, when once Rules govern the situation. This Court is also not equipped to come to a decision of its own, but can only weigh the comparative advantages and disadvantages duly taking notice of the underlying objectives of the Rules. In the matter of possibility of health hazards, pollution environmental preservation etc., concern awareness and added attention have come to be bestowed during the last decade and it has found place in the statute books. A few years back, perhaps the deciding factor would have been the opinion of the District Medical Officer or the Panchayat authorities themselves, but the position has drastically changed now. It is imperative that the presence and opinion of the pollution Control Board has an overwhelming impact and unless there is definite material to indicate that their suggestions were perverse, it cannot be sideline. 19. Rules prescribe aerobic composting and vermin composting as the acceptable methods for disposal of solid Municipal waste. But this pertains to only biodegradable waste. The panchayat has thought of giving attention only to the disposal of the above alone, Mr. Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board, submits. It cannot be disputed that there is solid waste, which are not digestible. These also require to be disposed of without creating pollution. It is stated that such waste constitutes about half of the daily waste collected from the panchayat area. In addition thereto, there is hospital waste as also waste collected from slaughter houses and markets. There is express prohibition to mix them with other biodegradable waste. One of the methods authorized is for burying them in deep pits. It is stated that such waste constitutes about half of the daily waste collected from the panchayat area. In addition thereto, there is hospital waste as also waste collected from slaughter houses and markets. There is express prohibition to mix them with other biodegradable waste. One of the methods authorized is for burying them in deep pits. It is evident that attention has not been bestowed to disposal of any such waste, as the entire idea, as could be gatherable from the project, is only with reference to the installation of aerobic waste treatment plant. 20. It was by an amendment of the panchayat Raj act in 1999 that Sections 219A to 219S were incorporated, whereby the panchayats were specifically authorized for dealing with rubbish, solid waste and filth. Adequate arrangements are to be made by the panchayats for removal of filth and waste. The collected wastes are the property of the panchayat, and suitable places require to be identified for final disposal of the same. Section 219F gives the necessary guidelines. Sections 219H also ultimately makes the panchayat answerable for the disposal of rubbish and offensive materials, produced by factory, workshops, markets slaughter houses, hotels, hospitals, warehouses and places of public resorts. Thus, initially the discretion for identifying the methods of disposal of the waste, primarily was vested with the local authority. 21. We have to examine the impact of the handling Rules 2000, which is a later introduction, at this context. The Municipal solid waste is defined, by an inclusive definition, as commercial and residential wastes generated in a municipal/notified area in either solid or semi-solid form. It excludes industrial hazardous wastes but included treated bio-medical wastes. The Municipal authority, under Rule 4, is obliged to make an application for grant of authorization for setting up waste processing and disposal facility, including landfills, to be obtained from the pollution Control Board. The Board is obliged to monitor the compliance of the standards regarding ground water, ambient air, leachate quality and the compost quality including incineration standards. Before issuing authorization, the Board is to examine the proposal taking into consideration the views of various agencies. 22. The Schedule attached to the Rules contains comprehensive terms. The Board is obliged to monitor the compliance of the standards regarding ground water, ambient air, leachate quality and the compost quality including incineration standards. Before issuing authorization, the Board is to examine the proposal taking into consideration the views of various agencies. 22. The Schedule attached to the Rules contains comprehensive terms. The local authority is to arrange for house-to-house collection of solid waste, and use devices for the collection of waste from hotels, restaurants and commercial area and also take steps for collecting waste from slaughter houses, meat and fish markets, fruits, vegetable markets etc. Segregation is to be there as between by bio-medical waste and industrial waste. Wastes are not to be burnt. In respect of processing, the Municipal authority is to adopt suitable technology or combination of technology, so as to make use of wastes for minimizing the burden of landfill. 23. The biodegradable wastes are to be processed by composting for stabilizations of wastes. Mixed wastes are to be treated by following the route of recycling. Land filling has to be restricted to non-biodegradable, inert waste, which is not suitable either for recycling or for biological processing. Simultaneously, we have to take notice of the Bio-Medical Waste (Management and handling) rules, and the Municipal Administration is a member of the Statutory Advisory Committee to be formed thereunder. Rule 14 thereof is to the following term: “14. Common disposal/incineration sites:- Without prejudice to Rule 5 of these rules, the Municipal corporation Municipal Boards or Union Local Bodies, as the case may be, shall be responsible for providing suitable common disposal/incineration sites for the bio-medical wastes generated in the area under their jurisdiction and in areas outside the jurisdiction of any municipal body, it shall be the responsibility of the occupier generating bio-medical waste/operators or bio-medical waste treatment facility to arrange for suitable sites individually or in association, so as to comply with the provisions of these rules. 24. It is conceivable that a sizable part of the waste could be disposed of only by use of land filling methods, as they may not be susceptible to decomposition. The proximity of the river causes a raw back, at this precise point. Evidently, the above aspect has escaped the notice of the panchayat. Schedule III of the Handling Rules makes specifications for identifying landfill sites. The proximity of the river causes a raw back, at this precise point. Evidently, the above aspect has escaped the notice of the panchayat. Schedule III of the Handling Rules makes specifications for identifying landfill sites. They are to be selected to make use of nearby wastes processing facility (see clause 4). The reason is obvious viz., that processing has to be carried out side by side. The landfill sites are required to be large enough to be of use for 20-25 years, and it should be away from habitation clusters, water bodies, wet lands etc. It is to be ensured that before the commencement of monsoon season, an intermediate cove of 40-65 cm thickness of soil shall be placed on the land-fill with proper compaction and grading to prevent infiltration during monsoon. Care is also to be bestowed for prevention of pollution. Construction of a non-permeable lining system at the base and walls of waste disposal area should be there. The highest level of water table shall be at least two meters below the base of soil barrier layer. There should be provision for management of leachates collection and treatment and also prevention of runoff from landfill area entering any stream river, lake or pond. 25. In this essential area of work, we have to observe that the objections of the Pollution Control Board practically go unanswered. The learned Advocate General also had supported the stand of the Pollution Control Board, as according to him, the parameters to be observed had been meticulously followed. The Pollution Control Board, by Ext.P2, had given permission for installation of a treatment plant in Sy.No.131 in Block 21 of the Mananthavady Village. Although application for extension of time had been filed, the request appears to be that the plant may be permitted to be installed at the newly acquired plot, although properties are contiguous. The Panchayat was having an extent of 4.75 acres in R.S.No.268, which was to be used as a burial ground. However, the contention raised was that such a large extent of land was not necessary for the purpose and an area of 2 acres had been segregated by a compound wall for the purpose. The Panchayat was having an extent of 4.75 acres in R.S.No.268, which was to be used as a burial ground. However, the contention raised was that such a large extent of land was not necessary for the purpose and an area of 2 acres had been segregated by a compound wall for the purpose. Additional 2 acres and 3 cents had been purchased by the Panchayat, which was adjacent and the contention of the Panchayat appears to be that this area could have been used for installation of the treatment plant. In fact, Ext.P15 letter from the Deputy Director of Panchayat shows that this plot is suitable for the project. 26. The objection of the Pollution Control Board, after making a local inspection, was that the pathway leading to the above property almost always became inaccessible during monsoon season. There was flooding and by this single drawback, the place was unsuitable. Although the panchayat has referred to the report of the Commissioners that the property at Choottakadavu was on an average of 4 to 10 meters higher than the water level of the river (perhaps when the water level is lean), this advantage is only in respect of the area which was assigned to them for the purpose of burial ground. The application for renewal is with reference to the newly acquired plot, but the Commissioners had reported as following: “The panchayat has purchased about 2 acres of land lying between the proposed site and the Mananthavady-Thavinhal Road which were private holdings. According to the panchayat, the proposed site could be accessed from the road through the land purchased by the Panchayat. Regarding the boundaries of the property thus acquired, there is difference of opinion between the Panchayat and the local public. The land purchased by the Panchayat between the proposed site and road is low lying and comprises of a large road is low lying and comprises of a large water body formed out of a brick kiln, which existed there in the past.” 27. Application for extension of time, as pointed out by the Pollution Control Board, is not with reference to Sy.No.268. It can only be with reference to the newly acquired site. In any case, land filling for burial of a substantial sector of the waste collected is an appurtenant work indispensable in nature. Application for extension of time, as pointed out by the Pollution Control Board, is not with reference to Sy.No.268. It can only be with reference to the newly acquired site. In any case, land filling for burial of a substantial sector of the waste collected is an appurtenant work indispensable in nature. Even if the permission for installation of the plant was at the original site, as land filling is a concomitant requirement, as per the Rules, the proximity of the river makes it unfit for the project. The reports of the Pollution Control Board as also the Commissioners indicate that by any standards the place could not be used for disposal of solid waste and as landfill site. 28. The resultant position, according to us, is that the site as a whole is unsuitable for waste disposal, although it could have been possible for installation of a aerobic disposal plant. But it could have met only about one-third of the total solid waste management work. The objection about the proximity to the river, coming from general public, would always be a disadvantageous factor. Gradual seepage would be natural, and the panchayat has no right to be a party for polluting drinking water by slow but steady poisoning. As public support is also indicated by the Rules as one of the essential conditions, when such plants are installed, the above cannot be ignored. 29. The circumstances that it is only 800 meters away from the town ultimately adds on to the draw back sufficient for rejecting the proposal. Transportation expenses will be minimal, but the Rules postulate a game plan spanning for a period of 20 to 25 years. A waste disposal plant within the town will turn out to be a blot to the aesthetic values. As suggested by the Pollution control Board, a plant at a safer place outside the town area would be more convenient and more advantageous taking into account the future development plans of the locality. 30. The Pollution Control Board has approached the issue with a practical sense, and we do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P14 order. Police protection for waste disposal at Choottakadavu therefore is not admissible. 30. The Pollution Control Board has approached the issue with a practical sense, and we do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P14 order. Police protection for waste disposal at Choottakadavu therefore is not admissible. The panchayat may proceed with the installation of waste disposal plant at the site suggested by the pollution Control Board, and if better sites are located, it could be within its discretion to inform the Pollution Control Board for them to examine the suitability/feasibility of such places. 31. We also record the submission of the learned standing counsel for the pollution Control Board that apart from giving technical co-operation and guidance, they are prepared to fund the project of the panchayat by giving an aid of Rs.10 lakhs for installation of the treatment plant. 32. In view of the above, it may not be necessary for us to separately deal with the submissions that had been made by Mr. Sivan Madathil, who appeared for the petitioner in O.P.No.30339 of 2002, and Sri. K. Jaju Babu, who had represented the cause of the Villagers, in W.P.(C).No.26544 of 2003, giving vent to the demand that burial ground earmarked for the purpose may unduly disturb the peaceful habitation. We also notice the submission of the standing counsel appearing on behalf of the kerala Water Authority in W.P.(C).No.19471 of 2005, that adequate measures will be taken so as to ensure that better drinking water will be made available to the residents of the town, taking notice of the public demand which was in the air. The Senior Counsel Mr. Achutha Kurup specifically adverts to the Commissioner’s reports. They had commented about the very poor arrangements of the water supply system of the town. We also note from the report of the Commissioners that generally waste was being drained to the kabani river from the panchayat area because of the geographical situation, and such water and the contaminated water was being pumped for general distribution system and this pose really a danger to the community. The panchayat should do all that is required for controlling the filthy drain water, by providing for sock pits and treatment systems, as they may consider proper. Adequate measures are to be taken by the kerala Water Authority to ensure that pure drinking water, conforming to the normal standards, alone is supplied and necessary measures are to be forthwith introduced. The panchayat should do all that is required for controlling the filthy drain water, by providing for sock pits and treatment systems, as they may consider proper. Adequate measures are to be taken by the kerala Water Authority to ensure that pure drinking water, conforming to the normal standards, alone is supplied and necessary measures are to be forthwith introduced. The Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above directions. If the Housing Board does not object, as a temporary measure, waste articles may be continued to be placed in their property hygienically, so as to tide over the present situation.