Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2662
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
Kunjan @ Krishnan
Versus
The Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department & Others
W.P.No.2585 of 2007, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 & Contempt Petition No.725 of 2008
Decided on : 07-06-2011
For the Petitioner:K. Selvaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R3 - C. Devi, Government Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of public sanitation and the need for providing public toilets by local bodies, rejecting objections based on personal and selfish grounds.
Headnote:
Public Toilet - Construction Dispute - 1947 Panchayat Board Act, Section 5 - The court discussed the history of public sanitation and the need for providing public toilets by local bodies, rejecting the case of the private owner made on personal and selfish grounds. The judgment referred to the case of R.Tamilarasi - vs- District Collector (2010) 8 MLJ 3662.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a mandamus forbearing the respondents from constructing a public toilet in front of their house. The respondents had obtained administrative sanction and funds for the construction of the new toilet after demolishing the old one, which had been in existence for over 60 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition, stating that no case was made out. The contempt petition against the respondents was also dismissed, and the court accepted the explanation offered by the contemners.
Issues: Dispute over the construction of a public toilet in front of the petitioner's house, alleged violation of constitutional articles, and objections based on personal interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court rejected the petitioner's objections, emphasizing the history of public sanitation and the need for public toilets by local bodies, as established in previous judgments.
Final Decision: The writ petition, miscellaneous petition, and contempt petition were all dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a mandamus forbearing the respondents from putting up a public toilet just in front of the house of the petitioner at 146-1, Thiruvagoundanour (East) Sooramangalam, Salem District.
2. Notice of motion was ordered in the writ petition on 24.1.2007. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted interim injunction till 07.2.2007, which stood extended from time to time. Aggrieved by the order of injunction, a vacate stay application was filed in M.P.No.2 of 2007 by the Superintending Engineer, Salem, together with a counter affidavit, dated 21.5.2007.
3. The petitioner, however, filed a contempt petition in Contempt Petition No.725 of 2008 seeking to punish the respondents for having disobeyed the order of this Court in M.P.No.1 of 2007 dated 23.3.2007.
4. When the contempt petition came up on 02.9.2008, notice was taken by the respondents. On behalf of first and second respondents, a counter affidavit dated 02.9.2008 was filed. The fifth respondent had filed a counter affidavit, dated 31.8.2008 and the sixth respondent had filed a counter affidavit, dated 16.9.2008. It must be noted that in the writ petition, an interim order was initially granted for a period upto 07.2.2007 and by order dated 23.3.2007, it stood extended until further orders. However, the respondents have filed M.P.No.2 of 2007 seeking to vacate the stay order and the same was not listed. Therefore, this Court felt that unless the respondents were also heard in the main writ petition, the question of proceeding with the contempt will not arise and, hence, with the consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself was directed to be posted.
5. Heard Mr.K.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.C.Devi, learned Government Advocate for official respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.R.Martin Jayakumar appearing for the sixth respondent.
6. The facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner resides with his family at 146-1, Thiruvagoundanour (East) in Salem District His original property was a vacant site without any structure. Subsequently, the petitioner has put up a structure in the property. It was stated that there was an old toilet found in the said location at the junction of Kannagi Street in the road leading to Sivathapuram and the road also leading to Salem Junction Main Road. It was constructed by the Panchayat Board Sooramangalam in the year 1947 for the use of the public of the area. The said toilet was used by the public for over 50 years and there was no objection from anyone regarding the existence of the toilet. The survey records of the concerned village made by the District Collector vide proceedings dated 01.6.1947 showed that the land was allotted for construction of public toilet in the Sooramangalam Panchayat Board in the year 1991. It became a municipality and the municipality renovated the toilet building and subsequently it became the corporation and the toilet was maintained by the Salem Municipal Corporation. The old building became dilapidated.
7. Therefore, at the request of the general public, the Member of the Legislative Assembly Veerapandi Constituency allotted a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the constituency development fund of the MLAs for construction of a new toilet in the same place after demolishing the old toilet building. The District Collector gave an administrative sanction for the new toilet and also allotted funds from the building construction maintenance division of the public works department on 08.2.2002. The Commissioner of Salem Corporation handed over the site to the PWD on 28.2.2006 after demolition of the old toilet. Subsequently, tenders were called for and after adopting the formalities and due procedure, the PWD on 22.2.2006 allotted the contract to the lowest tenderer by name Sri Amman Construction vide agreement entered into with the contractor. The work for the construction of new toilet commenced on 09.2.2006. It is at this stage one
