Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. The Osmania University and the other respondents in the Writ Petition have raised serious objections to the report of the Committee, referred to above, stating that the report of the Committee is one sided and has been given without issuing proper notices to all the concerned parties. it is also urged that the recommendations of the Committee are vague and indefinite, apart from being impracticable, and, therefore, cannot be implemented.

18. It may be stated that the A.P. Pollution Control Board has submitted its report dated 3-2-1989 taking serious objection to the flow of effluent from one's property to another's property. It is also stated that the University authorities are justified in blocking the entry of the waste from the flats of Ajay Constructions. The effluents so discharged are not being treated properly according to specified standards and are, therefor, likely to create serious problems of environmental pollution. Similarly, the inspection report given by Dr. B. Sarojinamba, Deputy Director of Industrial Hygiene, Office of the Director of Health also runs counter to the recommendations made by the Two-Men Committee ormed in pursuance of the orders of the Division Bench of this court. After the inspection of the area concerned, Dr. B. Sarojinamba has opined that there is no underground drainage system in this area and the existing underground pipe line from Harijan basthi of Habshiguda to the natural open drain of the Osmania University is not enough to satisty the needs of the residents of the area. The pipe line was meant only for rain water and cattle wash of Harijan Basti of Habshiguda. Since it was being used only for the rain water and cattle wash, the University authorities had not raised any objection so far. Later when Ajay Constructions connected their sewage into this underground pipe line, serious problems of environmental pollution have arisen. The entire sewage water at present is stagnated in a proposed park of Kakateeya Nagar Society where a new automatic milk booth is constructed with a bore-well. This stagnation of the sewage water is bound to affect the neighbouring wells and pollute the drinking water. She also-opined that the septic tanks constructed for the 32 flats of Ajay Constructions are not at all sufficient and there is overflow of sewage water from the septic tanks which have been connected to the underground pipe line which have been blocked by the Osmania University. Dr. Sarojinamba gave her final opinion that the connection of the sewage water from the multistoried building should not be permitted to the underground existing pipe line as there is no underground drainage system provided in this area. As a remedial measure the sewage should be collected through special tankers and transported to treatment place at the cost of fiat owners till a permanent underground drainage system is provided.

23. The other decision on which the learned counsel Sri H.S. Gururaja Rao has placed reliance is State of H.P. v. Umed Ram, . In this decision the Supreme Court was dealing with the question of the limits within which affirmative action in the form of some remedial measure in public interest in the background of the constitutional aspirations as enshrined in Article 38 read with Arts. 19 and 21 of the Constitution by means of judicial directions in cases of executive inaction or slow action is permissible. It was held that if the High Court activises or energises executive action, it should do so cautiously and that remedial action in public interest must be with caution and within limits. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from the above decision is that the courts are empowered to give directions with definite parameters and those directions are in the general interest of the public they must be carried out by the executive authorities. But an approach to the problem has to be made judiciously and even cautiously so that the directions may not transgress the propriety of judicial exercise of powers vested in the courts to alleviate the sufferance of the public due to the wrong action or inaction of the authorities. It may not be necessary to go meticulously into the question whether the Division Bench of the High Court was well within its judicial limits to constitute a Committee inviting an expert opinion on the problems of drainage existing in the concerned area. We are inclined to deal with the question from the point of the stark legalities involved in the matter, viz., as to whether M / s. Ajay Constructions, the owner of the 32 flats had a right to connect their sewerage pipe lines to the underground pipe line of Habshiguda in violation of the permit conditions imposed on them by HUDA while granting them permission for the construction of the said flats. Nevertheless, before dealing with this question in detail, it would be in the fitness of things to deal with the rival argument advanced by Sri B. Subhashan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent, M/s. Ajay Constructions dealing with certain provisions of the Municipalities Act governing the matter on hand. What is contended by Sri Subhashan Reddy is that under S. 147 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 it is the duty of the Council so far as the funds at its disposal may permit to provide and maintain a sufficient system of public drains. Under S. 148 the owners of buildings are to pay for clearance of sullage from their building by connecting their house drains with public drains and the same shall be recoverable in the same manner as property tax. Section 149 provides that all house drains, privies and cess pools within the Municipality shall be under the control of the Council and shall be altered, repaired, cleaned and kept in proper order at the expense of the owner of the premises to which the same belong. Under S. 150 the Commissioner shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises or the owner of private street, arrange in accordance with the bye-laws, for the connection of the applicant's drain with any public drain and where there is underground sewer, any private latrine with any underground sewer, at a distance not exceeding one hundred metres therefrom at the applicant's expense. The other provisions of Section 150 dealing with the details with regard to the distance and the manner in which these connections are to be given, need not be considered in this matter. The sum and substance of the submission made by Sri Subhashan Reddy is that the provisions of Ss. 147 to 150, read together, clearly reveals the point that the Municipality is under an obligation to ensure underground flow of the sewerage and sullage from the latrines or the cess pools to be formed in the private residences of the areas concerned. Therefore, it is submitted that the action of the Municipality in granting permission to connect the sewerage from the flats of Ajay Constructions to the underground pipe line of Habshiguda was well within the rights of the municipal authorities and cannot be assailed as being illegal or ultra vires the authority of the Municipality in doing so. The legal proposition thus emerging for consideration in view of these, two rival contentions is clear and precise. While the contention raised on behalf of the Osmania University and other respondents making common cause with them is that the action of the Municipality is thoroughly illegal and has led to the serious environmental pollution by permitting the connection of the sewerage line of the Ajay Constructions to the underground pipe line of Habshiguda contrary to the permit conditions imposed by HUDA before granting permission for construction of the flats. The argument on behalf of the Ajay Constructions is to the effect that the Municipality is under an obligation to prevent unhygienic conditions prevailing in any area and since the sewerage coming out of the septic tanks and soakage pits maintained by the Ajay Constructions constitutes a hazard to public health making the living conditions unbearable for the residents of the area, the Municipality had no choice but to permit Ajay Constructions flat owners to connect their sewerage line to the underground pipe line of Habshiguda which was initially constructed for carrying out the rain Water and cattle wash from the Harijan Basthi into the open channel through the Osmania University land. If this fundamental question is decided in these two writ appeals, then the question of the technical or expert opinions given by the various committees, which are at logger heads with each other, pale into insignificance because if it is held that the very action of the Municipality is to be struck-down as being aribitrary and illegal being in violation of the permit conditions, then the further question of inviting an expert opinion as to how the problem could best be solved does not arise. In fact, the indepth examination of the procedure adopted by the learned single Judge and subsequently by the Division Bench while passing the interim order constituting a committee reveals the fact that the formation of a Committee for inviting an expert opinion amounts to an implied recognition of the fact that the Municipality had a right to grant permission to connect the sewerage line with the underground pipe line of Habshiguda in the absence of an adequate underground drainage system in the area concerned because the relevancy of such an opinion would only arise when there is a concession granted to the effect that the problem has to be solved in the existing scheme of things which are now actually obtaining on the land in the locality. If the very action of letting out the effluent and the sullage from the septic tanks and soakage pits is illegal and is contrary to the permit conditions imposed for the construction of the flats, then we fail to see what could be the purpose of inviting an expert opinion in the matter for implementation to alleviate the sufferings of the public at large.

We have also examined the specifications with regard to the septic tanks and soakage pits prescribed by HUDa along with the building plans sanctioned by them. It is quite clear that the specifications with regard to the capacity of the septic tanks and the soakage pits fall far short of the required measurements which itself shows that M/s. Ajay Constructions has committed a serious violation by not adhering to the specifications laid down by HUDA. When these flats have been constructed with the onerous condition of ensuring that all the sullage and sewerage would be stored only in the septic tanks and the soakage pits without allowing any of these elements to go outside, then the question is whether the Municipality could really bale them out by allowing them to connect their sewerage lines to the underground pipe lines of Habshiguda on the pretext that it was otherwise creating a health problem for the people of the area concerned. The Municipality is not the authority to grant permission for the construction of the flats beyond 1 + 1 in accordance with the zoning regulations. The proper authority for construction of flats of more than 1 + 1 is the HUDa and not the Municipality. This multistoried building which has come into existence has therefore been sanctioned by HUDA subject to condition No. 6 about the sewerage to be stored in the septic tanks and soakage pits to be provided by the builders of the said flats. All these points have to be viewed in overall background of the fact that admittedly there is no underground drainage system existing in the Habshiguda even to this day. The University authorities, having vexed with the problem of flow of effluent into their land had constructed a compound wall and blocked the passage of the flow of the offensive material outside their premises which has resulted in a stagnated pool giving offensive smell and creating a tremendous pollution problem for the residents of the area.

Sri Siva Ready, learned counsel has also submitted that there is no underground drainage system available for the Habshiguda area and that steps are being taken to provide drainage facilities in accordance with the rules and regulations for the convenience of the residents of the area concerned. It seems to this effect some preparatory work has been done and efforts are being made to step up this activity so that an efficient underground drainage system may be functional in the area concerned. Mr. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the Municipality has also submitted that the Division Bench was well within its rights to constitute a Committee for the purpose of going into the feasibility of a practicable solution of the technical problem of providing drainage facility to the inmates of the Ajay Constructions consisting of 32 flats. He relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, , wherein dealing with the question arising in a social action litigation about the establishment of separate schools and hostels for children of prostitutes, the Supreme Court constituted a Committee to examine the problem and report to the court. This was done with a view to initiate reformative action for the children of the fallen women in the Society and to save them from the undesirable surroundings in which they were being brought up. In S.R. Kapoor v. Union of India, , the question again was one involing fundamental . rights on an application filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the mismanagement of hospital for mental diseases had assumed serious proportions and had to be set right in this regard. It makes certain recommendations for the efficient and sound running of the mental hospital and directed the Union of India in the appropriate Ministry to look into the matter with due care and concern and indicate a positive response when the matter was to be called again before the Supreme Court. To the same effect is the decision in Dharwad Distt. P.W.D.L.D.W. Association v. State of Karnataka, . The Supreme Court in this case directed to pay salary to such workmen at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay-scales of regular employees and permitted the State Government to frame a more rational scheme. It further gave certain directions to give final shape to the scheme to be promulgated in this regard. The above said case law no doubt establishes the point that in matters of technical nature which require expert opinion, the Court is empowered to constitute a Committee and invite its recommendations for the solution of the problem on hand. But this could be done only when the action where has been taken by the respondents in a particular case, is legal and within the circumscribed limits of its jurisdiction. In this case the construction of multistoried flats has been permitted by HUDA subject to the condition that no effluent should be allowed to be discharged outside the septic tanks and the soakage pits to be put up for this purpose. It is evident that M/s. Ajay Constructions could not be allowed to regularise a patent illegality committed by them by connecting their sewerage pipe line to the underground municipal pipe line of Habshiguda for discharging the offensive material. This means that the permit condition for construction of the flats has been violated and if the opinion of the Committee of Experts consisting of technical personnel is to be accepted, it would amount to legalising a patently illegal act which cannot be permitted under the terms of the permit granted by HUDA to M/s. Ajay Constructions for raising the multistoried structure. In such an event, the question to be considered is not whether the court is empowered to invite the opinion of a technical Committee but to see whether the action of the respondents in connecting the sewerage pipe lines is legal in the light of the conditions imposed on them.