2014 Supreme(Mad) 97
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.
P. Kalimuthu
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By its Secretary, Urban Development & Local Administration & Others
Writ Petition No. 32460 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2013
Decided on: 10-01-2014
For the Petitioner:N. Sudharsan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R.A.S. Senthilvel, G.A.
The court's decision was based on the petitioner's right to live without any health hazard/clean environment, and the availability of alternative sites for the construction of the public toilet.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Construction of Public Toilet - - [Section 4, Section 6] - The court found that the petitioner's right to live without any health hazard/clean environment would be affected if the public toilet is constructed in front of the petitioner's house. The court directed the fourth respondent to construct a new toilet in a new site identified by the Advocate Commissioner, away from the existing site.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to stop the construction of a public toilet in front of their house, citing health hazards caused by a nearby Coconut Fibre Mill and the lack of permission for the mill's operation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the construction of the public toilet in front of the petitioner's house would affect their right to live without any health hazard/clean environment.
Issues: Construction of public toilet, health hazards, alternative sites for construction
Ratio Decidendi: The interest of justice would be met by disposing the writ petition and granting liberty to the petitioner to send a Demand Draft for the construction of a public toilet in an alternative site identified by the Advocate Commissioner.
Final Decision: The court directed the fourth respondent to construct a new toilet in a new site identified by the Advocate Commissioner, away from the existing site.
1. By Consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from proceeding with the construction of public toilet in front of petitioner's house at No.10, Krishna Asiramam Road, Jameen Oothukuli, Jameen Oothukuli Post, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that he is permanently residing in the above said address with his family for the past several decades. A Coconut Fibre Mill was running in the name and style of "Mathina Fibres" near the petitioner's house, which caused pollution and excess particles were being poured in the petitioner's house, due to which, he and his family members suffered illness very often. The owners of the said Fibre Mill had not obtained permission from the Panchayat or from the Pollution Control Board to run the Mill. The petitioner's neighbour one Thirumoorthy had given a representation to the District Collector. The Pollution Control Board in turn inspected the mill and pursuant to the inspection, noticing the cause of damage to ecology, the authorities closed the said mill. Due to the closure of the mill, the owners of the mill influenced the respondents 2 to 4 and got sanction to construct the public toilet in front of the petitioner's house entrance, the third respondent dug out a pit to construct public toilet and according to the petitioner, if the public toilet is constructed in the said place, the petitioner's right to live without any health hazard/clean environment will be affected. There are other alternative sites available to construct the public toilet and in spite of giving representation not to construct the public toilet in front of the petitioner's house, construction was proceeded. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the prayer as stated above.
4. When the writ petition was posted for admission on 5.12.2012, this Court ordered private notice and also ordered status-quo, which was also extended periodically, which is in force as on today.
5. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the vacate stay petition and prayed for vacating the interim order, for which, the petitioner has filed a reply, wherein it is stated that roughly about 200 meters away from the petitioner's house, on the road itself, there is enough space to construct the toilet; and in the interest of the village people, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lakh in the name of the fourth respondent by way of Demand Draft; the present construction which is put up in front of the petitioner's house is roughly about 200 mtrs away from the proposed toilet site and hence, the people at large will be benefited and the petitioner can also live with his family members, without any hindrance or health hazard. The said fact was disputed by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent during the course of argument.
6. In view of the contra stand taken by the petitioner and R4 this Court by order dated 13.12.2013, appointed Ms. N.Menaka, Advocate as Advocate Commissioner to visit the place in the presence of the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent and file a report before this Court on 8.1.2014.
7. The learned Advocate Commissioner has filed a report on 7.1.2014 and in paragraphs – 4 to 6, it is stated as follows:-
“4. The toilet exists in the left side of the Krishna Ashram Road i.e., the road from Jameen Oothukuli to Karumapuram, and it is situated adjacent to the house of the petitioner. The toilet is situated at a distance of 4 feet from the petitioner's house. And it is incomplete and wide open. The entrance wall of the toilet was seen damaged. The toilet outlet pipe is in such a way that the toilet while used flows in the open canal. There is no connection between the outlet pipe and the septic tank. The present condition of the toilet is that it is filled wi