Judgment :- Petitioner seeks issuance of mandamus directing the respondent to cut and remove the two trees standing in front of the petitioner's house bearing Door No. 40, Jermiah Road, Vepery, Chennai-7, and thus render justice. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the petitioner is residing at Door No. 40, Jermiah Road, Vepery, Chennai-7. The house has a compound wall. Abutting the compound wall, in the pavement, there are two trees in front of petitioner's house. It is said that the roots of the trees have gone into the sewerage and drainage system in the street maintained by the respondent and also into the sewerage and drainage line connecting petitioner's house to the main line, and this affects the free flow of sewerage and drainage water from petitioner's house to the main line and also the running of sewerage and drainage water in the main line. It is further said that the trees have grown projecting towards the compound wall of petitioner's house and subsequently towards her house. According to the petitioner, the roots have damaged the compound wall and also the main structure. It is said that the trees are standing in such a way that they may fall at any time on petitioner's compound wall as well as on her house and damage the same. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has a public and statutory duty to maintain the streets, pavements and drainage and sewerage system. It is said that under Section 259 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, the respondent has a duty to cut out any tree or branch of a tree deemed by him to be likely to fall and thereby danger any person or structure. There is also a common-law duty on the part of the respondent to see that the nuisance or danger is averted. It is further said that the petitioner is living in constant danger and she bona fide apprehends that the trees may fall on the compound wall and the residential building, causing danger to her life and property. There is also a constant threat to the pedestrians. Petitioner wrote to the respondent several letters, the last of which is dated 16-10-1997, making a request to cut and remove the trees in question. But the respondent did not respond to any of those letters. There is also a constant threat to the pedestrians. Petitioner wrote to the respondent several letters, the last of which is dated 16-10-1997, making a request to cut and remove the trees in question. But the respondent did not respond to any of those letters. Therefore, petitioner issued a legal notice on 10-11-1997. But, as usual, respondent remained silent. It is under the above circumstances, petitioner has come to this Court for the reliefs stated above. 3. When the writ petition came for admission on 8-1-1998, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Corporation took notice and sought an adjournment for filing counter. It is seen that except for request of adjournment, respondent is not serious in filing counter. On 27-2-1998, I informed learned Standing Counsel for respondent that counter, if any, should be filed on or before 16-3-1998, and that no adjournment will be granted thereafter. The respondent has not filed counter till date. 4. The case was posted on 8-6-1998. Even on that date, learned counsel for respondent sought a further adjournment. But I declined to grant an adjournment. 5. Petitioner has already written to the respondent on 16-10-1997 about the dangerous condition of the two trees which are standing in front of her house, and how far they have damaged her building. When respondent remained silent and did not take any action, and did not care to make at least an enquiry, petitioner was compelled to issue a legal notice. As usual, respondent continued to remain silent. When danger to life and property is brought to the notice of a statutory authority the silence on its part is nothing but abdication of its duties. Under the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, respondent is statutorily bound to take necessary precautions if any tree or structure is in a dangerous condition. Even though the wordings under Section 259 of the Act may imply that it applies only to trees belonging to other persons, there is a common-law duty on the part of the respondent to see that its trees do not cause any danger to the life and property of the citizens. In this case, the Commissioner of Madras Corporation has refused to discharge his statutory or common-law duties. In this case, the Commissioner of Madras Corporation has refused to discharge his statutory or common-law duties. It is not only in this case but also in most of the cases where the Corporation of Madras is a party, unless some orders are passed or directions are issued by Court, the Corporation does not act. Such attitude on the part of the Commissioner or any Statutory Authority is only to be deprecated. Even though this indifferent attitude of the Corporation is noticed in most of the cases, it has also come to the notice of this Court that in certain cases where the Corporation is interested, counter is filed even at the time when writ petitions come up for admission, and replies are sent simultaneously when representations are received. It has also come to the notice of this Court that affidavits are filed by Officers representing the Corporation containing false statements, and if this Court issues Commission to ascertain the veracity of such statements in the affidavits, those statements are subsequently withdrawn. A statutory Authority like the respondent-Corporation should not maintain such a double standard. It is clear from many instances that unless the Corporation is interested in a particular case or it wants to protect some persons, it will not discharge its duties enjoined upon it under law, and a common man is driven from pillar to post and thereafter approach the Court for getting relief. The harassment caused by the respondent to a common man brings him untold misery. He is compelled or constrained to approach this Court only because of the callousness or double standard maintained by the Corporation. This writ petition is one such instance where the petitioner was compelled to come to this Court, which could have been avoided if only the Commissioner of the respondent-Corporation had spent a few minutes of his so-called precious time. 6. When a person assumes charge of the office as Commissioner of Corporation, he has to take up the responsibility enjoined upon him under the Statute. If he does not take up the responsibility, or if he maintains double standards, he is unfit to hold the office. Various writ petitions are filed before this Court only with a prayer to direct the Authorities to pass orders on representations. Silence on the part of the respondent is one of the reasons for various litigations before this Court. If he does not take up the responsibility, or if he maintains double standards, he is unfit to hold the office. Various writ petitions are filed before this Court only with a prayer to direct the Authorities to pass orders on representations. Silence on the part of the respondent is one of the reasons for various litigations before this Court. If only the Statutory authority acts in time, at least 25% of the litigations could be avoided. In this case, the irresponsibility on the part of the Commissioner in discharging his duties has caused untold hardship to the petitioner. 7. In this case, the subject matter is only two trees. The question is, whether they should be cut and removed or not. Even in a simple matter like this, the Commissioner of the Corporation has refused to take any decision or action. When a legal notice is issued, he had not even the minimum courtesy of at least sending a reply. So long as there is no counter, and when not even a reply has been sent to the legal notice issued by the petitioner through her counsel, I have to take it that the allegations made in the affidavit are true. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. I direct the respondent to cut and remove the trees which are referred to in the writ petition, within ten days from the date of production of a copy of this Order. W.M.P. No. 258/98 for direction is closed. 9. Since the petitioner had to come to this Court only because of the negligent/irresponsible attitude on the part of the respondent, it is bound to pay costs of the writ petitioner. Advocate's fee Rs. 3, 000/- (Rupees Three thousand only). 10. Post the case for report about compliance of the above directions, including payment of costs, on 25-6-1998. Petition allowed.