The court emphasized the importance of addressing public interest in petitions and considered the personalized nature of the objections raised by the petitioner.

In this Public Interest Litigation, petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the orders of first respondent in the proceedings Na.Ka.No.1515/2008/m8 dated 110. 2009 and to direct the first respondent to allot place of construction of the Tank in any one of the poromboke lands available in Survey Nos. 174, 147/1 and 137/3 of Kottapalayam Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District.

2. S.No.171/1 - 14. 5 Hectares of Kottapalayam Village has been classified as Mandaiveli Poramboke. In S.No.171/1 GramaSabha has passed resolution of construction of new Tank under All Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittam (midj;J fpuhk mz;zh kWkyh;r;rp jpl;lk;) and administrative permission was also granted. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the proposed Tank is constructed in S.No.171/1, land meant for grazing of cattle will be reduced. Further grievance of the petitioner is that S.No.171/4 is Mayanam and if the Tank is constructed in S.No.171/1 there will be seepage of water and soil of the graveyard will be water logged making it difficult to bury dead bodies. It is further stated that the construction of the Tank in S.No.171/1 will obstruct Ponni Aaru Stream, whereby more than 70 acres of lands of villagers getting irrigation facilities may be affected.

3. We have heard Mr.N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3, and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for fourth respondent.

4. Earlier the petitioner has filed W.P.No.16979 of 2009 seeking Writ of Mandamus forbearing respondents from locating pond in S.No.171/1. By the order dated 21.08.2009, the Writ Petition was disposed of directing first respondent/District Collector to look into the representations of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision after enquiry. Pursuant to the direction of the First Bench, District Collector (first respondent) conducted enquiry on 010. 2009 and 010. 2009 and enquired the petitioner, Village Administrative Officer, Tahsildar, Block Development Officer, Agriculturalist and other general public. After due enquiry, District Collector has passed the impugned order permitting fourth respondent to proceed with construction of the Tank in S.No.171/1 imposing the following conditions:

a) The Tank should be constructed in the northern boundary of Survey No.171/1 with a maximum distance away from the proposed site. There should be 100 feet distance from the new Tank and the graveyard situated in Survey No.171/4.

b) The Tank should be constructed with boundary walls to an extent of 3 metres without any seepage of water. Outlet to be made below the present ground level.

c) The sand dug up from the area should be used to level the low level areas in the graveyard after utilizing it for making boundaries of the Tank.

d) To explain the details of the Tank to be constructed without seepage of water under All Grama Anna Marumalarchi Thittaam, to remove the fear among the villagers and to proceed with construction with proper protection to continue the project.

5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that before proceeding with the proposed construction for Tank, Rules 3, 4, 9 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu Grama Sabha (Quorum and Procedure for Convening and Conducting of Meetings) Rules, 1998 were not followed. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel Mr.N.G.R.Prasad submitted that there was no meeting convened as per the rules for convening GramaSabha and while so, first respondent was not right in saying that the resolution was made in GramaSabha for construction of new Tank. Pursuant to the orders of First Bench in W.P.No.16979 of 2009 dated 21.08.2009, since the first respondent/District Collector has made an elaborate enquiry examining the petitioner, Village Administrative Officer, Block Development Officer, Agriculturalists and other general public, it may not be necessary for us to go into the merits of the contention whether the rules for con