A person can maintain a suit for establishing public right.

1st Defendant in O.S.No. 1180 of 1971, on the file of the II Assistant City Civil Court, Madras, is the appellant.

2. Two plaintiffs have filed a suit under 0.7, Rule 1 and O.1, Rule 8, C.P.C., for the following reliefs: (a) restraining the defendant by issuing a permanent injunction from loading or unloading or stacking coal or any other materials offensive or injurious to the health of the plaintiffs and other local residents and/ or to the value or utilityof their properties; (b) directing the first defendant to pay the costs; and (c) granting the plaintiffs such further or other reliefs as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

.3. In the body of the plaint it is said that the plaintiffs have filed the suit on their behalf and on behalf of the residents living near Perambur High Road, Perambur, Madras. The reason for filing the suit was that the 1st defendant is using its land in the said locality in the way resulting injurious to the health of the local residents and damages to their properties. The 1st plaintiff is the owner of lands comprised iff S.No.249/2, and still owns few plots of vacant land therein. He has also sold plots of lands in the same survey number to different persons and some of them have constructed residential buildings. The 2nd plaintiff is the owner of premises No.68, Perambur High Road, Madras, and has let out portions to different tenants. The locality is a residential area and State Bank Colony and Desai Colony are also situated in that area. E.S.I. Hospital is situate next to the properties of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st defendant is the owner of the adjoining lands in S.No.250/5. During the course of early 1969, they started using the land for stacking coal taking advantage of the loading and unloading facilities provided by the Railway siding. When the coal is loaded or unloaded coal dust spread around, finding its way inside all the rooms of the houses in the area and the coal dust spreads around blown by the wind when it is stacked. Consequent to the aforesaid act of the 1st defendant, the buildings become dirty and the food-stuffs and water are polluted and it does materially interfere with the health of the residents leading to disease. The residents also suffer physical discomfort in breathing as the air is polluted. The plaintiffs through their counsel sent a notice on 20.11.1969 calling upon the 1st defendant to remove the coal and to stop further unloading and stacking of the coal, which was replied denying the allegations. It is said that the plaintiffs are the residents of the locality and have a right not to be exposed themselves or their properties to the discomfort, injury and loss occasioned by the offensive trade carried by the 1st respondent which amounts to a nuisance.

4. In the written statement, the maintainability of the suit was challenged on the ground that the plaintiffs have not obtained a written consent of the Advocate Genera! as provided in Sec.91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor the plaintiffs have proved any special damage, so as to enable them to file a suit. It is further said that the 1st defendant has obtained proper permission of the Corporation and their actions in loading and unloading of coal in their property is only lawful, and they have also taken preventive measure, so that the coal dust may not spread outside. They are doing watering to the coal, and therefore, the alleged nuisance is also not correct. There is also no nuisance much less an actionable nuisance. They prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, evidence both oral and documentary was taken. P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined on the side of the plaintiffs and the appellant examined one Desai as his witness. As documentary evidence the plaintiffs filed Exs.A-1 and A-2, which are only the notice and reply notice and Exs.B-1 to B-10 were filed on the side of the appellant.

.6. After elaborately considering the entire evidence, the tri