JUDGMENT : C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. 1. The 6th respondent in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The 1st respondent herein is the writ petitioner and respondents 2 to 6 are the respondents 1 to 5 in the writ petition. 2. Challenge in the writ petition was against Exts.P2, P3, P8 and P9 proceedings. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner was constructing a residential building after obtaining a building permit from the Grama Panchayath. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by the 2nd respondent directing the 5th respondent to take steps for stoppage of construction of the septic tank of the said building by the writ petitioner. It is stated that, the direction was issued based on a compliant lodged by the appellant herein and based on a report obtained from the Deputy District Medical Officer, Malappuram, that the septic tank is being constructed without keeping the distance of 15 Meters from the nearest drinking water source, as stipulated under the Public Health Act and that there are chances of polluting the drinking water source. Ext.P3 is the consequential stop memo issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath requesting the writ petitioner to stop the construction of the septic tank. Ext.P8 is the copy of a reply letter issued by the 3rd respondent Deputy Director of Panchayaths to the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath, wherein it is mentioned that, the 'stop memo' issued to the writ petitioner cannot be withdrawn taking into consideration of the possibility of causing pollution to the drinking water source. In the said letter it is stated that, even though the distance to be maintained as per the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Building Rules') is only 7.5 meters, there is a report and instructions of the District Collector. Therefore it is stated that the writ petitioner may be directed to shift the location of the septic tank to a distance of 15 Meters from the drinking water source. Ext.P9 is a letter issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath to the writ petitioner requesting compliance of the directions contained in Ext.P8. 3. While considering the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that, the District Medical Officer had suggested shifting of the septic tank on the basis of provisions contained in the Madras Public Health Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Public Health Act’). 3. While considering the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed that, the District Medical Officer had suggested shifting of the septic tank on the basis of provisions contained in the Madras Public Health Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Public Health Act’). But it was noticed in the judgment that, as per Rule 85 of the Building Rules the distance to be maintained is only 7.5 meters. The learned Single Judge found that, in fact there is a distance of 8.5 Meters kept from the well of the appellant to the septic tank under construction. It is also found that the septic tank is being constructed strictly in accordance with the stipulations contained in the building permit. Therefore it was found that there is no basis for issuing Ext.P3 stop memo. The Single Judge noticed that, by virtue of an interim order passed in the writ petition permitting the construction, the septic tank was fully constructed and the Grama Panchayath had issued "Occupancy Certificate" to the building in question. Hence the writ petition was allowed by quashing Exts.P2, P3, P8 and P9 proceedings. It is aggrieved by the said judgment, the above writ appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, provisions contained in Section 32 of the Public Health Act need to be strictly adhered, because the said Act is still in force in the locality (area) in question. Further it is contended that, the Public Health Act has got an overriding effect on other laws by virtue of Section 144 of the said Act. Therefore it is contended that, even though the Building Rules stipulates only a distance of 7.5 Meters, it is to be ensured that the septic tank is keeping a distance of 15 Meters from the nearest drinking water source. The above said aspect was omitted consideration of the learned Single Judge, is the contention. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on a decision of the High Court of Madras in S. Kamatchi and Others vs. G. Saraswathy and Another, CDJ 2010 MHC 5315. A learned Judge of that court, on comparison of the word “cesspool” contained in Section 32 of the Public Health Act and the word “septic tank” contained in the Building Rules of that State, found that, both the words are synonymous to each other. A learned Judge of that court, on comparison of the word “cesspool” contained in Section 32 of the Public Health Act and the word “septic tank” contained in the Building Rules of that State, found that, both the words are synonymous to each other. Therefore the contention raised is that, even though the distance mentioned in Section 32 of the Public Health Act is referring only to “cesspool” it is equally applicable with respect to construction of any septic tank. 6. The Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011 is framed by the Government in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 235A, 235B, 235F, 235P, 235W r/w 254 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. Provisions of the Building Rules regulate the matters connected with the construction or development of any land within the limits of the Panchayath. Rule 4 of the Building Rules insists that no persons shall develop or re-develop any parcel of land without obtaining a development permit for each such development or re development. It also provides that, no person shall erect or re-erect a building or make alterations to any building or cause the same to be done without obtaining a separate building permit. Further it provides that, no person shall change the nature of occupancy of an existing building from one group to another, without obtaining permit for that particular purpose. The provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act read with the Building Rules would clearly indicate that, it is a special statute governing the field of developments of land and constructions within the area of the panchayath. Question is whether the Public Health Act has got an overriding effect on the special enactment with respect to the subject matter of permitting constructions. Section 144 of the Public Health Act provides that, if any provision relating to public health contained in any other enactment in force in the State of Madras is repugnant to any provision contained in this Act, the latter provision shall prevail and the former provision shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. At the 1st instance, Rule 85 of the Building Rules cannot be considered as a provision relating to public health. At the 1st instance, Rule 85 of the Building Rules cannot be considered as a provision relating to public health. Even assuming that the provision therein is made taking into consideration of upkeep and maintenance of the public health, it is to be held that the provisions of the Public Health Act, which was enacted as early as in 1939, will have no overriding effect on the special enactment of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 and the Building Rules, 2011 made thereunder, which were enacted after the long lapse of more than seven decades. Therefore, we hold that Section 32 of the Public Health Act cannot be considered as having an overriding effect upon the provisions contained in the Building Rules. 7. Further, we take note of the provisions contained in the Public Health Act in Section 32, which is extracted below: “Construction and closure of cesspools:- (1) No person shall construct a cesspool:- (a) beneath any part of any building or within fifty feet of any tank, reservoir, water course or well or within such other distance therefrom as the Health Officer may consider to be practicable having regard to the circumstances of the locality. (b) within any local area, or outside such area but within three hundred feet of any reservoir used for the storage of filtered water to be supplied to such area, except upon site and in a position which have been approved in writing by the Health Officer. (2) The Health Officer may, at anytime, by notice, require any person within whose premises any cesspool is constructed in contravention of sub-section (1) to remove such cesspool or to fill it up with such material as may be approved by him.” Evidently, the prohibition contained therein is with respect to the construction of any “cesspool” and the said provision does not deal with construction of “septic tank”. In contra distinction Rule 85 of the Building Rules provides as follows: “Wells - No leach pit, sock pit, refuse pit, earth closet or septic tank shall be allowed or made within a distance of 7.5 metres radius from any existing well used for supply of water for human consumption or domestic purpose or within 1.20 metres distance from the plot boundaries.” 8. Both the words “cesspool” or “septic tank” are not seen defined in the respective statutes. Both the words “cesspool” or “septic tank” are not seen defined in the respective statutes. But the word “sewage” is defined under Section 3(33) of the Public Health Act as follows: “Sewage” means night soil and other contents of latrine, cesspools or drains and includes trade effluents and discharges from manufactures of all kinds.” 9. Since the words “cesspool” and “septic tank” are not defined under the respective statutes, we have to rely on the dictionary meaning of both the words. A comparative chart of the meanings of the words mentioned in different Dictionaries are extracted as follows:- Cesspool Septic tank 1. The New Lexicon of Webster's Dictionary A deep hole into which sewage drains A tank in which sewage is broken down by anaerobic bacterial activity. 2. Another Dictionary 1 .A trap made under a drain etc., to retain solid matter. Also, a rain water head in guttering. 2. An underground chamber for the temporary storage or disposal of foul water or sewage. 3. Concise Oxford English Dictionary An underground container for the temporary storage of liquid waster and sewage. A tank, typically underground, in which sewage is allowed to decompose through bacterial activity before draining by means of a soakaway. 4. Chambers Concise Dictionary 1. A tank, well etc., for the collection and storage of sewage and waste water. A tank, usually underground, in which sewage is decomposed by anaerobic bacteria 2. A rotten and putrid place. 5. Another Dictionary in the website A covered hole or pit for receiving drainage or sewage, as from a house. 6 Merriam Webster Dictionary An underground reservoir for liquid waster (as household sewage) 10. From the dictionary meanings as quoted above, it is clear that “cesspool” is a storage place of sewage in the underground constructed as a whole or a pit, intended to stock liquid waste and sewage. “Septic tank” is a tank constructed facilitating decomposition of the sewage with the help of anaerobic bacteria. Presumably, the threat of pollution created by percolation of the contents in the “cesspool” when compared to that of the “septic tank” is entirely distinct and different. “Cesspool” indicates a pit created for the purpose of storage of sewage without any separate chambers or proper retain wall constructions. Presumably, the threat of pollution created by percolation of the contents in the “cesspool” when compared to that of the “septic tank” is entirely distinct and different. “Cesspool” indicates a pit created for the purpose of storage of sewage without any separate chambers or proper retain wall constructions. Whereas, it is the common knowledge that the septic tanks are created with specific chambers for helping the de-composition process through bacterial activity and it has got specific designs with measurements and with protecting walls constructed on given specifications using concrete. It is also of common knowledge that, nowadays such tanks are manufactured with PVC materials and ready made concrete tanks are also available. We are of the considered opinion that nature of the construction, the purpose, and the process of de-composition, are entirely different in both the cases. Therefore we are persuaded to hold that the word “cesspool” contained in the Public Health Act cannot in any manner be equated as synonymous to the word “septic tank” contained in the Building Rules. Therefore it is to be held that, the provisions of Section 32 of the Public Health Act cannot apply with respect to construction of any “septic tank” and the distance prohibition contained therein is not applicable for construction of the septic tanks. The prohibition of keeping distance of 7.5 meters from well used for supply of water for human consumption and for domestic purpose, as provided under Rule 85 of the Building Rules, alone need to be adhered in the matter of construction of septic tanks. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the public health authorities are empowered to look into the question of pollution and with respect to environmental issues. We are not in dispute with respect to the powers vested on such authorities under the relevant statutes. But such power cannot be extended to prohibit construction which is done strictly in accordance with provisions contained in the Building Rules. 12. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we do not think that there occurred any illegality, error or impropriety in the judgment impugned in this appeal. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.