Disposed

Krishnaveni v. The Managing Director

Madras HC18 Dec 2025WP/21789/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizen alleged inaction on sewage complaints, harassment and demand of extra money by a CMWSSB employee, and sought a departmental enquiry. The Court directed the first respondent to decide her representation dated 29.07.2022 within two months and, if her complaint proved true, act against the second respondent within a month thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Mandamus to first respondent to decide representation dated 29.07.2022 within 2 months; action against 2nd respondent within 1 month if complaint true.

Krishnaveni Vs The Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.21789 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 18.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

W.P.No. 21789 of 2022

Krishnaveni

...Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewage Board (CMWSSB) No.75, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600028.

¶11

2.E.Pandian ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to conduct departmental enquiry against the 2nd respondent for act of omission.

¶13

1/8

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.21789 of 2022

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. J.N.Naresh Kumar For Respondent1 : Mr. K.Subramani Standing Counsel For Respondent 2: No Appearance.

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This writ petition is filed to direct the 1^st respondent to conduct

¶19

departmental enquiry against the 2^nd respondent for an act of omission.

¶20

The petitioner is a senior citizen and she gave an online complaint for sewage blockage on 11.07.2022 and there was no response from any officers. Thereafter, she gave several complaints on 12.07.2022, 18.07.2022, 20.07.2022 and 21.07.2022 through post and toll free numbers and given complaint to the Member of Legislative Assembly, Mr.Udayanidhi Stalin on 13.07.2022.

¶21

Thereafter, the petitioner made an online application for a new

¶22

sewage connection. This was on account of the fact that the 2nd

¶23

2/8

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.21789 of 2022

¶26

respondent earlier did not properly repair the sewer and stated that the problems would arise often and they cannot come regularly. The petitioner would submit that in response to her complaint to the MLA office, they have directed the 2nd respondent to attend the complaint and he came to the petitioner’s house on 14.07.2022. The 2nd respondent gave a false report that the entire sewage system of the petitioner’s house is damaged and it cannot be repaired. He has also abused and threatened the petitioner as to why she has given complaint to the MLA and higher officials.

¶27

The petitioner would submit that she had applied for new connection under the “Azhaithal innaippu” scheme. However, the 2nd respondent demanded additional money for new connection from the petitioner, when she refused wordy quarrel arisen between them. The petitioner would further submit that under the said scheme, the applicant should get connection within 15 days and without any document verification. However, the petitioner was struggling to get the new connection. She would contend that she was unnecessarily harassed.

¶28

3/8

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.21789 of 2022

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that the above mentioned acts and

¶32

omissions shall be deemed to be a misconduct under the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1978. She would submit that the 2nd respondent to wreck vengeance on account of the earlier complaint had altered the complaint as renewal instead of new connection. The petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent several times but he refused to consider her request to give new connection under “Azhaithal innaippu” scheme. The petitioner was running from pillar to post requesting the authorities to give new connection under “Azhaithal innaippu” scheme following the statutory rules but they did not provide the new connection.

¶33

The petitioner has sent a representation dated 24.07.2022 to the

¶34

respondents in this regards. Since there was no response, the petitioner had once again sent a representation dated 29.07.2022. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

4/8

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.21789 of 2022

¶38

records.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶40

records.

¶41

The petitioner’s grievance is that she has not been provided with new sewage connection, which has resulted in untold difficulties in their household. The petitioner has given her representations as early as in the year 2022. However, the same was not considered till date.

¶42

Considering the above facts, a mandamus is issued to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass order on the petitioner’s representation dated 29.07.2022, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the complaint made by the petitioner is true, appropriate action shall be taken against the 2^nd respondent within a period of 1 month therefrom.

¶43

5/8

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.No.21789 of 2022

¶46

With the above direction and observation, this writ petition is

¶47

disposed of. No costs.

¶48

18.12.2025

¶49

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

¶50

kan

¶51

6/8

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

W.P.No.21789 of 2022

¶54

¶55

The Managing Director Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewage Board (CMWSSB) No.75, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai – 600028.

¶56

7/8

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.No.21789 of 2022

¶59

P.T. ASHA, J

¶60

kan

¶61

W.P.No.21789 of 2022

¶62

18.12.2025

¶63

8/8

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Krishnaveni v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnaveni v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.v.Palanisamy Vs The State of TamilNadu

S.Arulraj Vs the Director of Local Fund Audit

A.Jubilee Manoharan Vs Mr.Rajaraman and 3 others

V.T.Naresh kumar Vs The Secretary to Government

M.Chandramani Vs State of Tamil Nadu

P.Ananth Vs The Chairman