V.Vasanthakumari v. The Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.06.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH W.P.No.32699 of 2018 V.Vasanthakumari ..Petitioner .v.
1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Ward-64, Zone-6, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai.
3. The Area Engineer, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Swerage Board, Zone-6, Chennai.
4. The Zonal Health Officer, Zone-VI, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.
5.Mr.S.Kodhandaraman ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to rectify the drainage lines existing on the back side of the building bearing Door No.23, 1st Floor, 2nd Main Road, Tirupathi Nagar, Kolthur, Chennai-99 which were blocked by the 5th respondent by inserting Iron Rods.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar For R 1, 2 & 4 : Mrs.Karthikaa Ashok For R 3 : Mr.N.Ramesh Standing Counsel
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to rectify the drainage lines which is alleged to have been blocked by the 5th respondent.
2.The case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent is a builder and he had obtained a planning permission from the Corporation of Chennai to construct flats. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent was entitled to put up three dwelling units, one in the ground floor and two in the first floor. The further case of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent has proceeded to unauthorisedly construct one additional flat in the ground floor. The daughter of the petitioner is in possession of one of the flat in the ground floor and the petitioner is in possession of one of the flat in the first floor. According to the petitioner, when the unauthorised construction was questioned, he has proceeded to break the drainage lines and inserted iron rods and as a result of the same, the petitioner is not even able to use the toilet and the petitioner has been put to untold hardship. A representation was made by the petitioner to permit the petitioner to rectify the drainage lines and the petitioner was also willing to bear the cost.
3.The Corporation of Chennai has filed a counter affidavit. A stand has been taken in the counter affidavit to the effect that there is a ongoing dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent with regard to the right over the property and the 5th respondent has given a complaint to the effect that the petitioner is letting out the waste water and sewage into his property. Therefore, the Corporation had proceeded to issue a notice under Section 44 of the Public Health Act. A specific stand has been taken in the counter affidavit to the effect that the sewage line of the petitioner is blocked and therefore the drained water is let out. The Corporation of Chennai wants the dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent to be resolved before any action can be taken by the Corporation of Chennai.
4.The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this case and he has taken a stand that the petitioner has attempted to alter and occupy the common passage and this was prevented. A civil suit has been filed in OS No.5456/2018, before the City Civil Court and the same is pending. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that a private dispute which is pending before the Civil Court is now sought to be agitated by filing the present writ petition and such a factual
dispute cannot be decided in a writ petition. A very specific stand has been taken in the counter affidavit and the same has a lot of significance and it is extracted hereunder. "The petitioner can very well use the old drainage line which also causes no disturbance to anyone. The 5th respondent has no objection to rectify the drainage line under the suppression of the corporation authorities at the cost of the petitioner."
5.This Court heard the elaborate submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 6.At the outset this Court is not willing to go into the private dispute between the petitioner and the 5th respondent and the same has to be agitated only before the Civil Court in which the suit is pending. It is the specific stand taken by the Corporation that on inspection it was found that the petitioner's sewage line was found to be blocked and the drained water is therefore let out. It is also important to take note of the specific stand taken by the 5th respondent and which has been extracted supra.
7.This Court is more interested to find a solution to prevent letting out of sewage water since it will contaminate the entire place if it is drained out. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has made a makeshift arrangement and the petitioner is finding it very difficult to manage the situation on a daily basis.
8.Without going into the allegations and counter allegations made by the petitioner and the 5th respondent, this court is of the considered opinion that an inspection can be made by the Corporation Officials and it can be ensured that the sewage water is let out into the drainage without causing any hindrance to the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent himself has taken a very specific stand that he has no objection to rectify the drainage lines under the supervision of the Corporation Authorities and he has stated that the petitioner must only bear the cost. The learned counsel for the petitioner made it very clear that the petitioner will bear the cost for the rectification of the drainage line and the petitioner is more interested in solving this issue rather than complicating it by going into the technicalities.
9.The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to respondents 2 to 4 and the concerned authorities shall immediately make an inspection within one week from the date of receipt of the representation. The authorities
shall rectify the drainage lines and ensure that the sewage water from the flat belonging to the petitioner is properly drained without causing any damage to the rights of the 5th respondent and also without causing any public nuisance. This process shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of the inspection. The petitioner shall bear the cost. It is made clear that this arrangement will not in any way enure to the benefit of either of the parties in the civil suit that is pending before the concerned court and the civil court shall independently consider the rights of the parties by not placing reliance on this order.
This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KP To
1. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Ward-64, Zone-6, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai.
3. The Area Engineer, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Swerage Board, Zone-6, Chennai.
4. The Zonal Health Officer, Zone-VI, Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai.
W.P.No.32699 of 2018 SSV(CO) GS(08/07/2020)