Dismissed

Irudaya Rani v. the Area Officer

Madras HC1 Dec 2014WP/21352/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that since water and sewerage work was done under an interim order affecting third parties, the matter is closed. The petitioner must repay Rs. 15,000 advanced by newly impleaded parties to the Advocate Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 15,000 to pending third parties who advanced it to the Advocate Commissioner. M.P. No. 1 of 2013 closed.

Irudaya Rani Vs the Area Officer — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 01.12.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

Writ Petition No.21352 of 2013

¶6

Irudaya Rani ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The Area Officer
Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board
Division No.117, Noor Veerasamy Street
Chennai 600 034.
2. The Assistant Engineer
Nungambakkam Area No.9
Corporation Division No.117
Valluvarkottam High Road
Chennai 600 034.
3. Vetriveeran
4. Ambedkar ...Respondents
(R3 and R4 impleaded vide order
dated 25.7.2014 in M.P.No.1 of 2014)

¶8

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to provide drinking water supply and sewerage connection to the petitioner's house for which the second respondent is to work in tandem to do the road cutting facility in Grama 1st Street on the 8'.9" common pathway shown as Item Nos.III &IV in the sketch of the petitioner's house in the above address which is pending for more than 1½ years without any reason.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Paandiyan For Respondent-1 : Mr.Jothikumar For Respondent-2 : Mr.Govindaraj For Respondents 3 & 4 : Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner came up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to provide drinking water supply and sewerage connection through Grama 1st Street along common pathway. By a first interim order passed on 20.9.2013, a direction was issued to the official respondents to provide water and sewage connection.

¶13

Thereafter, the official respondents appeared before this Court and pleaded that third parties were objecting. Those third parties were not impleaded in the writ petition. However, by a further order dated 11.10.2013, this Court issued a direction to the police to provide protection for the official respondents to lay the water and sewage pipelines. Under threat of contempt and with police force, the pipelines were laid.

¶14

The unfortunate third parties came up thereafter and filed a petition for impleading and the impleading petition was allowed by this Court, after the petitioner succeeded in the main writ petition by way of interim orders.

¶15

Thereafter, for the purpose of completion of the remaining formalities, the writ petition was posted for final disposal. I have heard Mr.M.S..Paandiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Govindaraj, learned counsel for the Chennai Corporation, Mr.M.Jothi Kumar, learned counsel for the CMWSS Board and Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, learned counsel for the newly impleaded parties.

¶16

As stated earlier, by two interim orders passed behind the back of the petitioners, this Court directed the respondents 1 and 2 to dig the common pathway and lay pipelines both for water and sewerage connections to the house of the writ petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that everything is now over.

¶17

Though I do not agree with the said contention, since what has been done is only in pursuance of an interim order and that the same can always be offset by a final order directing restitution, I do not think that this is a case where that exercise could be undertaken by this Court. The reason is that in the report of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court, it is stated that Grama 1st Street is the only lane through which the petitioner can access his property. Therefore, I think it is better to leave the newly impleaded parties to work out their remedies in a civil forum rather than upset the work done by the official respondents.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

There is one last issue to be resolved. The final remuneration for the Advocate Commissioner was directed to be paid by the newly impleaded parties. It is like the horse not only throwing the rider on the road, but also digging his grave. Therefore, the writ petition is closed, recording the fact that already service connection has been granted. But, the petitioner shall pay to the respondents 3 and 4, within two weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order, the amount of Rs.15,000/- paid by them as Advocate Commissioner fee. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2013 is closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kpl
To
1. The Area Officer
Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board
Division No.117, Noor Veerasamy Street
Chennai 600 034.
2. The Assistant Engineer
Nungambakkam Area No.9
Corporation Division No.117
Valluvarkottam High Road
Chennai 600 034.
1 CC to Mr.M.S.Paandiyan, Advocate SR.No. 57988
1 CC to Mr.N.Anand Venkatesh, Advocate SR.No. 58290
1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR.No. 58108
W.P.No.21352 of 2013.
NM (CO)
PSI (12.12.2014)

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Irudaya Rani v. the Area Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irudaya Rani v. the Area Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Muthukrishnan, Vs Union of India

E.R.Shine, Vs The District Revenue Officer

Parasakthi Vs The Joint Commissioner

M.Manickam, Vs State of Tamilnadu

G.Arunprasad, Vs the Secretary

M.Aamira Fathima, Vs The Annamalai University