Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : AVINASH SOMAKANT BHATE, N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
K.Srinivasan - Appellant
Versus
Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Secunderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 11-16-99
Constitution of India – Articles 12 , 48 , 51 , 226 , 29 and 21 - Cantonment Act , 1924 – Sections 187 , 188 , 189 , 180 , 184 , 52 , 274 and 179 - Writ petition on basis of a representation sent by residents Colony, Secunderabad - Writ petition is taken up as Public Interest litigation - Contents of representation are as follows petitioners are residents Colony, which comes under jurisdiction Cantonment it is alleged that Constructions constructed 27 flats multi-storied complex opposite to their houses without making a provision for septic tanks - According to petitioners 2nd respondent constructed 27 flats though Cantonment authorities had accorded permission for construction of 10 flats only - Thus said construction is an unauthorised one - Due to absence of septic tanks, raw faecal matter is being let into adjacent open rain water drain due to which petitioners are experiencing foul odour and unable to keep their windows open - Even occupants of 27 flats seem to be strange human beings in perpetuating this crime against society - This situation creates health hazards to residents of Colony - Petitioners brought this matter to notice of Sub-Area Commander on who in turn instructed Executive Officer, secunderabad Cantonment Board, 1st respondent, to look into matter and solve same - As there was no improvement in matter, petitioners also met 1st respondent who replied them that he had inspected septic tank and certified accordingly and nothing remains to be done in matter - Being not satisfied with attitude of 1st respondent, petitioners requested Station Health Officer, Military hospital, Cantonment who inspected complex in question and gave report endorsing allegations levelled by petitioners – Held , IN case on hand, from report of Expert Committee it is clear that flats have been constructed by 2nd respondent-builder in violation of sanctioned plan - Also 2nd respondent- builder did not provide adequate septic tanks and drainage was not properly maintained by him - Apart from this, there are other violations of sanctioned plan as pointed by Expert Committee - A person who is permitted to put up construction is bound to obey sanctioned plan and proceed with construction in accordance with sanctioned plan only - Any deviation in this regard is an offence - When a resident of locality or tax-payer brings to notice of authorities concerned about irregularities or violations particularly violations of sanctioned plan in putting up construction and not taking step to stops nuisance being caused in locality, authorities are duty bound to take action forthwith - In case on hand cantonment Board has deliberately refused to act inspite of being informed about violations of statutory requirements and buildings regulations - It did not care to direct concerned to take steps to prevent nuisance that is causing to inhabitants in locality due to lack of providing adequate civic amenities - Writ petition allowed
N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.
( 1 ) THIS is taken up writ petition on the basis of a representation sent by the residents of Krishnapuri Colony, West nehru Nagar, Secunderabad. The said writ petition is taken up as Public Interest litigation. The contents of the representation are as follows: the petitioners are the residents of krishnapuri Colony, West Nehru Nagar, secunderabad, which comes under the jurisdiction of Secunderabad Cantonment it is alleged that M/s. Kartik Constructions of West Marredpalli (2nd respondent) constructed 27 flats multi-storied complex- opposite to their houses without making a provision for septic tanks. According to the petitioners the 2nd respondent constructed 27 flats though the Cantonment authorities had accorded permission for construction of 10 flats only. Thus the said construction is an unauthorised one. Due to the absence of septic tanks, raw faecal matter is being let into the adjacent open rain water drain due to which the petitioners are experiencing foul odour and unable to keep their windows open. Even the occupants of the 27 flats seem to be strange human beings in perpetuating this crime against society. This situation creates health hazards to the residents of Krishnapuri Colony. The petitioners brought this matter to the notice of Sub-Area Commander on 20-5-1993 who in turn instructed the Executive Officer, secunderabad Cantonment Board, 1st respondent, to look into the matter and solve the same. As there was no improvement in the matter, the petitioners also met the 1st respondent on 17-7-1993 who replied them that he had inspected the septic tank and certified accordingly and nothing remains to be done in the matter. Being not satisfied with the attitude of the 1st respondent, the petitioners requested the Station Health Officer, Military hospital, Cantonment who inspected the complex in question and gave report dated 27-7-1993 endorsing the allegations levelled by the petitioners.
( 2 ) APART from Sewage problem, the petitioners stated that due to the continuous pumping of underground water since commencement of the construction work, the petitioners were forced to go in for bore well as their open wells were completely dried. Even now on account of the continuous pumping of ground water by the inhabitants of 27 flats, some of the bore wells of the petitioners have dried. Thus, they are facing a desparate water situation.
( 3 ) THE petitioners further stated that there is also garbage pollution as wet and dry garbage from the complex is being thrown in the open road as the builder did not make arrangement for collection of garbage. The builder instead of installing the transformer within the premises, installed the same by constructing stone masonry plinth of about 5 (6 high) on the colony road, thereby creating obstruction for traffic and nuisance to the residents of the colony. During construction due to the heavy movement of lorries, concrete mixtures etc. , the colony road was severely damaged and exposed the road metal leaving it in a miserable state. The cantonment, authorities are least bothered in this regard.
( 4 ) ). On the complaint given by the petitioners and other residents of a nearby colony, a notice dt. 7-4-1992 was given to the 2nd respondent u/s. 185 (1) of the cantonment Act to remove the unauthorised construction within thirty days. Aggrieved by this notice, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal u/s. 274 of the Cantonment Act before the Competent authority which was dismissed by an order dated 26-10-1993 observing that the construction is illegal and the Board is at liberty to take further action in pursuance of the notice. Pending appeal, the 1st respondent- Cantonment Board filed o. S. No. 438/1992 on the file of the xviii Assistant Judge, Secunderabad and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from proceeding with the unauthorised construction. In spite of the said injunction order, the 2nd respondent completed the entire constructi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.