Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

R.Santhanam vs The Superintending Engineer

Madras High Court|23 November, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The writ petition has been filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent relating to the order bearing letter No.Se.Pa.Ku/EE/(HQ)/2003 dated 25.08.2003 refusing to give sewerage connection to the building, No.35, Samipathan Street, Ramalingapuram, Chennai  600 012.
2.The petitioner is a tenant/occupier of the premises No.35, Samipathan Street, Ramalingpuram, Chennai  600 012. The petitioner submitted an application on 23.06.2003 for sewerage connection under the category of persons living below the poverty line. The respondent issued work order dated 24.06.2003 subject to certain conditions. The petitioner he was awaiting the work to be completed by the respondent authority. while so, the impugned order was passed on 25.08.2003 rejecting the request for sewerage connection stating that:
A) the petitioner did not put up rain water harvesting facility B) the owner of the house has objected to the sewerage connection stating that she is going to demolish and reconstruction of the building and necessary connection will be taken at the time of in new construction.
3.Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been filed. The respondent has not filed counter. Section 56(1) of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 reads as follows:
56.(1) The authorised authority shall, on the application of the owner or occupier of any premises or the owner of a private street, arrange for the applicant's house sewer or other sewer in the private street to empty into a sewer of the Board if
(b) There is a sewer of the Board within thirty metres of the nearest point from such premises or property;
(c)the owner or occupier agrees to bear all cost and expenses of the work and materials necessary for that purpose; and
(d) the owner or occupier complies with such conditions and requirements as may be prescribed.
There is no bar to provide the sewerage connection as per the above provisions of law.
4.In this case the requisite fee and charges has been paid by the petitioner. The petitioner has under taken to put up the rain water harvesting system. He has an order in his favour in the proceedings initiated by the landlord before the rent controller. Therefore there can be no difficulty in providing the connection if there is no other impediment. The plea of the land lord that she is going to demolish and reconstruct is another matter for the rent controller Court to decide. The right to sewerage connection cannot be denied on this plea.
5.In view of the aforesaid Act providing for sewerage connection to the owner or occupier, the respondent has a duty to provide the sewerage connection to the petitioner without any further delay. In the additional grounds raised by the petitioner he has stated in ground No.3 as follows:
iii)In any event, I here by undertake not to claim any amount from the landlords in the event of an eviction order is passed against my mother. I may be permitted to live in the property with the basic amenities of water and sewerage connection.
This undertakings will safeguard the interest of the landlord.
6.In such view of the matter the respondent are directed to effect the sewerage connection under the scheme applied by the petitioner on complying with the direction to put up the rain water harvesting facility. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

R.Santhanam vs The Superintending Engineer

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
23 November, 2009