The petitioner is the resident of S.T. Mankad Village in Kanyakumari District. The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the representation dated 28.3.2009. A copy of the representation is enclosed in pages 5 to 8 of the typed set along with the writ petition. The proof of the said representation being sent by the Registered Post with acknowledgement due is also found in page-9 of the typed set.
2. The grievance of the petitioner was that the 5th respondent who is the President of S.T.Mankad Village, permitted to open new private market near the petitioner's residence, Re-survey numbers 31/16C. While survey NO.31/17 belongs to PWD Water Resource Organisation. Neyyar Section II Re-Survey No.31/18 belongs to the petitioner's brother.
3. The grievance of the petitoner was that there are 6 markets within half a kilometre from the locations cited under the above survey numbers and by locating a new market, in the P.W.D's land the petitioner and his brother were affected. The village market opened by the 5th respondent is not for the welfare of the village. Therefore, he wanted the 1st respondent to take action.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the said representation is actually a statutory appeal in terms of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act 1939. The petitioner has invoked the power under Sec.49 of the said Act.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was fair enough to accept that the 5th respondent is a Village Panchayat. It can be seen from the provision of the Public Health Act that the said Act is applicable only to the local authority defined under Sec.3(20) of the Act. The Act applies to Corporation of Madras, other Municipal Areas and Town Panchayat coming under District Municipalities Act.
6. Sec.3(20)(d) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act 1939 clearly states as follows:
(d) in the case of all areas in a district defined as aforesaid, which are not comprised within the jurisdiction of such panchayat the panchayat union council concerned"
7. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court a letter written by the Assistant Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board dated 27.2.2009 addressed to the Commissioner, Munchirai Panchayat Union, in which the Engineer requested the Commissioner to take necessary action on the complaint petition submitted by the petitioner under the provisions of the Local Bodies Health Act. He also submits that the Panchyat is also governed by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Opening and Maintenance of Market) Rules 2000 framed under Secs.147 and 148 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act 1994. Therefore, the said Rules under Rule 4 enables the Inspector of Panchayat, the District Collector to inspect any proposal sent by the Village Panchayat in respect of a location of a market. Rule 4(2)(c) enables the Inspector even to assess the proposal of the Village Panchayat on the basis of the health and sanitation aspect specified by the Deputy Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine.
8. Then the question is not whether the Panchayat has validly located the market in terms of the Rule. Such a question will have to be addressed before the District Collector who is the Inspector of Panchayat and who is also empowered under Sec.202 of the Panchayat Act to interdict any decision made by the Panchayat.
9. The petitioner invoking appropriate authority has come with the present writ petition seeking direction to authorities who are not empowered to deal with the grievance projected by him. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
sr To
1. The Secretary to the Government Public health Department Secretariate, Chennai-600 009
2. The Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicine D.M.S Complex Public Health Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009
3. The Deputy Director of Public Health & Preventive Medicine Krishnankoil, Nagercoil K.K. District
4. The District Collector, Nagercoil, K.K. District
5. The President S.T. Mankad Village Panchayat S.T. Market Post K.K. District