The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit against a local authority for construction activities may not be maintainable without prior sanction from the Government under Section 142 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, even if the construction is part of a government scheme.

1. The Appellants/Plaintiffs 1 & 2 have focused the present Second Appeal anim adverting upon the Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.1998 in A.S.No.43 of 1998 passed by the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.1997 in O.S.No.1224 of 1994 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.

2. A resume of narration of plaint facts, which are necessary for disposal of this Second Appeal are as follows:

(i) The Appellants/Plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that the subject matter of the suit property is situated at Pattamangala Araya Street, Mayiladuthurai Town. The street runs in East-West directions. In the street, there are number of residents and there are nearly more than 100 houses in both sides (Southern and Northern sides). All of them could not be joined at the time of filing of the suit. As such, the Appellants are the Village Heads of the street and they represent the residents of the street. All their interest is common and as such, the Appellants/ Plaintiffs have filed the suit in a representative capacity and in this regard, the Interlocutory Applications filed by them have been allowed by the trial Court on 28.02.1995.

(ii) The case of the Appellants/Plaintiffs is that in the street, there are residents colony, flat system houses, temples, marriage hall and business shops. The street is a main one leading to Railway Junction. All the houses on both rows of the street are having comfortable backyards. Beyond the backyard, there are conservancy lanes. The street and houses are very ancient. The houses have been constructed in such a fashion that they accommodate good drainage facilities through the backyard and the drainage channel is connected with the conservancy lane. In the type of the houses, the drainage water cannot be drained in the front side of the houses. If the 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Defendant (Municipality) wants to upkeep the sanitary conditions, it is enough if they keep the conservancy lane clean.

(iii) The 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant (Municipality) for the reasons best known to them, for the benefit of someone have enunciated the scheme of putting up the open masonry drainage throughout the street. If the Municipality wants to put up an open masonry construction there ought to be some water course in which the drainage channel can be connected and the water from the channel may be drained. However, in the Appellants/ Plaintiffs street there is no proper drainage channel. A drainage channel, which has been in existence earlier, has been filled up in due course. There are no tanks or ditches in which the drainage water can be drained. So, the drainage channel should carry the water to a particular end and therefrom it has to be drained in the side of the street. Because of the stagnation of drainage water and silt, bad odour will emanate and the same will pave way for breeding of mosquitoes and insects. The street is an East-West street. The Eastern portion is lower than the Western one. The intended drainage is being located in a fashion that the water has to be carried out from Eastern side to Western side, which will be practically impossible.

(iv) Continuing further, it is the plea of the Appellants/Plaintiffs that in the street, the Municipality water pipe line is on the ground level. Hence, in front of every houses, at huge costs, the house owners have constructed pits to take water from the pipe line. If a drainage is to be constructed, the pipe line has to be taken over the masonry drainage and there will not be flow of water. If it is going to be installed before the ground level. There are every possibility of drinking water and drainage water getting mixed up. On enquiry, the Appellants/Plaintiffs are able to know that there is no proper plan regarding the commencing point and other drainage facility of the intending drainage. The Appellants/Plaintiffs learn that the 2nd Respondent (Municipality) is obl