Judgment :- M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Federation of Pammal and Nagalkeni Welfare Association has filed W.P.No.19969 of 2003, seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the first respondent District Collector, Kancheepuram; the second respondent Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, Chennai; and the third respondent Executive Officer, Pammal Town Panchayat, not to dig up or damage any part of Pammal Thirupananthal Lake, its bunds and walls for the purpose of the proposed drainage work. 2. K.S.V.Devanathan filed W.P.No.21769 of 2003 for issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the District Collector, Kancheepuram, third respondent, from proceeding with the construction of open sewerage drain water line on the bunds of Thirupananthal Lake and demolishing the bunds and inlets for the purpose of drainage work and to direct the second respondent Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to investigate into the matter regarding the same. 3. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions would relate to the same lake, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 4. According to the association, petitioner in W.P.No.19969 of 2003, it is a welfare association, which was started and has been carrying on social service activities in and around Pammal and Nagalkeni villages. In April, 2002, the association approached the District Collector, first respondent, requesting for renovation and desilting of Pammal-Thirupananthal Lake and implementation of the rain water harvesting work. The then District Collector, after inspection of the lake, decided to carry out the said work and directed the petitioner to collect and contribute Rs.45,000/- for the said work. Accordingly, the petitioner association deposited the said amount of Rs.45,000/- with the Collector's office. On the basis of the direction issued by the first respondent, after deposit, the Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, on 02.07.2002, submitted an estimate of Rs.9,80,000/- for renovation and implementation of rain water harvesting work. On 15.07.2002, the then District Collector passed an order granting sanction for the execution of the work at the cost of Rs.7,95,000/-. On the basis of the said order, rain water harvesting work was started and continued. On 25.11.2002, the then District Collector passed an order, entrusting the maintenance of the above lake to the petitioner association. For the purpose of safety of the lake, the petitioner built two compound walls around the lake in order to prevent the public and cattle from misusing the lake. On 25.11.2002, the then District Collector passed an order, entrusting the maintenance of the above lake to the petitioner association. For the purpose of safety of the lake, the petitioner built two compound walls around the lake in order to prevent the public and cattle from misusing the lake. In the meantime, the Executive Officer, Pammal Town Panchayat, third respondent, requested permission of the District Collector to construct open drainage, by demolishing the lake bunds to take sewerage water from Pammal village across the lake. The new District Collector, who took the charge later, ordered for the same. This was objected to by the public, since there was every probability of drainage water mixing up with the drinking water in the lake. The association also suggested alternate route for constructing drainage without affecting the lake. However, there was no response. Hence, this Writ Petition for a direction, forbearing the respondents from digging up or damaging any part of the lake bunds and walls. 5. According to K.S.V.Devanathan, petitioner in W.P.No.21769 of 2003, the District Collector, after proper consideration, implemented the Rain Water Harvesting Scheme at the cost of Rs.8,00,000/-, by providing five inlets for Rain Water Harvesting, desilting, cleaning the lake and raising bunds. However, in August, 2003, the District Collector decided to demolish the bunds of the lake and a portion of the bunds was also demolished. Therefore, the association filed the Writ Petition for a mandamus and interim injunction was granted. Despite that, the bunds were demolished. Ultimately, in the Contempt Application, a Division Bench of this Court directed to restore the bunds to their original position. 6. The Executive Officer, Pammal Town Panchayat, while opposing both the Writ Petitions, would submit that the apprehension of the association and the private individuals that the bunds surrounding the lake would be damaged under the guise of construction of drainage channel is unfounded, as the concrete based drainage is going to be constructed around the bunds and thereby stagnation of drainage water around the bunds causing pollution to the entire area could be avoided. The construction of drainage channel was ordered after inspection only to channelise the drainage water. In this regard, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board was called upon to inspect the place and submit a report. Accordingly, after inspection, the report was filed. The construction of drainage channel was ordered after inspection only to channelise the drainage water. In this regard, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board was called upon to inspect the place and submit a report. Accordingly, after inspection, the report was filed. In the report, it is stated that the Pammal Municipality has to make arrangements for proper collection and disposal of sewerage/drainage water in the said area to avoid entry of drainage water into the Thiruppananthal Lake to preserve its quality. Therefore, only for the purpose of proper collection and disposal of drainage water, it is proposed to construct the drainage channel with cement concrete base around the lake so that the drainage water can be drained to be taken to the outlet which is located on the northern side of the lake and ultimately it would be connected to the disposal point at airport signal office. So, under those circumstances, the Writ Petitions are not sustainable both on facts and law. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the report filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. 8. On a perusal of the report and the counter filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, it is clear that since there was no adequate drainage facility, sewerage along the road side may find its way into lake through the inlets and, therefore, the Board suggested that the Pammal Municipality has to provide proper sewerage facility to avoid entry of drainage water into the lake. 9. As a matter of fact, the Government implemented the Rain Water Harvesting Scheme under G.O.No.158, dated 11.11.2002. The respondents, having implemented the Rain Water Harvesting Scheme and after having directed the residents not to drain the pollutant or effluent water into the lake, cannot allow the construction of open sewerage or closed sewerage line on the bunds of the lake to drain the sewerage water. As such, the act of Pammal Panchayat in putting up the sewerage line on the bunds of the lake is against the scheme of Rain Water Harvesting. Indeed, a perusal of the letters written by the Executive Engineers of the Government dated 23.09.2002, 03.10.2002 and 07.10.2002 would show that insistence was made on the Municipality to take the sewerage line in the alternate route to avoid mixing of sewerage water into the tank. Indeed, a perusal of the letters written by the Executive Engineers of the Government dated 23.09.2002, 03.10.2002 and 07.10.2002 would show that insistence was made on the Municipality to take the sewerage line in the alternate route to avoid mixing of sewerage water into the tank. Admittedly, permission was granted by the District Collector to the Municipality to construct the drainage even without hearing the petitioner association, which was entrusted with the lake maintenance work. 10. In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to para 25 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in 1997 (1) SUPREME COURT CASES 388 (M.C.MEHTA VS. KAMAL NATH AND OTHERS), which reads as follows: "The Public Trust Doctrine primarily rests on the principle that certain resources like air, sea, waters and the forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership. The said resources being a gift of nature, they should be made freely available to everyone irrespective of the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. According to Professor Sax, the Public Trust Doctrine imposes the following restrictions on governmental authority: Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust: first, the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public; second, the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent; and third the property must be maintained for particular types of uses." 11. In view of the factual situation and also the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the prayer sought for in these Writ Petitions has to be granted in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P.Nos.24958 and 26986 of 2003,402,403 and 8333 of 2005 and W.V.M.P.No.2001 of 2003 are closed.