Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 697 (DEL)

SURJEET SINGH v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2007-03-30

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
ORDER (Open Court) 1. Can the residents of a colony legitimately insist that the proposed sewer lines should be laid only in the rear side of their houses and not on the front side. Can they seek a mandamus from this Court for that purpose. These are issues that arise in the present petition jointly filed by the forty four residents of Shankar Garden, New Delhi-110 018. 2. During the pendency of the present writ petition, Mr. N.N. Malhotra, petitioner No.1 expired. Since the present petition is in the nature of a class action litigation that should not make any difference to the other petitioners continuing the petition. The cause title of the present a petition will now be Surjit Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the respondent No.2-Delhi Jal Board (DJB) commencing on 16.4.2005 the digging and excavation work in front of their houses for the purpose of laying fresh sewer lines. They claim that two parallel lines of sewer earlier laid in the rear side of their, houses are sufficient for the drainage system of the entire colony. 4. While directing the notice to issue on 25.4.2005, this Court directed status quo to be maintained. Consequently, the work of laying the sewer lines in the colony has come to a halt. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the DJB pointing out that the earlier sewerage system in the Shankar Garden area was laid about 30-35 years ago and the outfall of the sewerage system was on main Najafgarh Road. This carried the sewage up to the Keshopur Treatment Plant. It is stated that the outfall on main Najafgarh Road is defunct for the last more than 10 years. Consequently, a proposal was made to connect it with another outfall sewerage point towards C-Block, Vikas Puri. The width of the sewer pipelines laid earlier was 150 mm dia whereas the pipelines proposed to be laid are of 300 mm dia. 6. It is further claimed that initially the work of laying fresh sewer lines was started in the year 1994-95. After laying 100 m of sewer line, the work had to be stopped since the rear lane was not wide enough to lay a sewer line of 3.0 m depth. It is thereafter stated as under: 1/8. 6. It is further claimed that initially the work of laying fresh sewer lines was started in the year 1994-95. After laying 100 m of sewer line, the work had to be stopped since the rear lane was not wide enough to lay a sewer line of 3.0 m depth. It is thereafter stated as under: 1/8. That for carrying out the work the respondent on 8.12.2004 issued NIT No. 34 (2004-2005) for improvement of sewer system for providing 300 mm dia peripheral sewer line of Shankar Garden. On 22.1.2005 the work order was issued to the contractor to complete the work by 24.3.2005 which has been extended to 15.6.2005. Out of the total length of 192 metres, 49 metres peripheral sewer line has been laid and balance work is held up due to the resistance by the residents. Work was planned even with the help of police also on 16.4.2005 but as per the general consensus arrived at after discussion with residents including petitioners, SHO, Police Station, Vikas Puri and DJB Staff, it was postponed and work is now held up for completion in the reach marked A-100 to A-35 to A-51 having the length of 143 mtrs and 9 manholes. Work on completion will improve the sewerage system of Shankar Garden/Site-1 of Vikas Puri and also check the sewage presently going into the drain/river Yamlma." 7. A reference is also made to Section 14 of the Delhi Water Board Act, 98 under which the power to lay the sewer line for improvement of sewerage system in the area keeping in view the technical requirement, is entirely in the domain of the DJB. As regards the objection to laying the sewer line and the water line on the same road, it is submitted that even in a newly developed colony, while the branch sewer line and branch distribution water line are laid in the rear lane, the main water line and the sewer line is usually laid on the wider main road. 8. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, it is stated that the work in the rear lane was not stopped because it was not wide enough but on account of the vested interests of one resident in House No. 63 who expressed reservations over the passing of sewer line from his side of the property. 8. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, it is stated that the work in the rear lane was not stopped because it was not wide enough but on account of the vested interests of one resident in House No. 63 who expressed reservations over the passing of sewer line from his side of the property. It is stated that sufficient space exists in the rear lane to lay the proposed sewer line. A reference is made to the Code for pipes formulated by the Indian Standards Institution. 9. Mr. Dinesh Agnani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the DJB was not justified in their insistence that the sewer pipeline should be laid only on the main road instead of rear road as had already been planned. He submits that the records of the case should be summoned from the DJB which would go to show that the explanation being offered now was not the real reason for the decision of the DJB. 10. On behalf of the DJB, Ms. Shobhna Takiar, learned Counsel submitted that the decision to lay a sewer pipeline in a particular location in a colony should be best left to the DJB to decide. She further submitted that the entire work has been held up for nearly two years now and this is causing inconvenience to other residents of the colony. She points out to the fact that the Residents Welfare Association, Shankar Garden has filed an application CM No. 8229 of 2005 seeking impleadment of itself in this writ petition as respondent. 11. In fact in the said application CM No. 8229 of 2005, it is claimed that Shankar Garden Welfare Association does not oppose the laying of the main sewer line in the manner proposed by the DJB. Although in reply the petitioners herein claimed that the application is mala fide and by the members of a rival association, the rejoinder to the said application points out that the petitioner No.1, after losing the election to the post of President of the Association had tried to form a new association. 12. Although in reply the petitioners herein claimed that the application is mala fide and by the members of a rival association, the rejoinder to the said application points out that the petitioner No.1, after losing the election to the post of President of the Association had tried to form a new association. 12. As far as the application for impleadment is concerned, it is clear that, whatever may be status of the welfare association, not all of the residents of Shankar Garden are supportive of the petitioners here in demanding that the sewer line be laid only in the rear lane of the colony. 13. As regards the substantive prayer of the writ petitioners, this Court is of the view that the explanation offered by the DJB for proceeding to lay the sewer line on the main road cannot be termed as irrational or to reasonable requiring interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whether the sewer pipeline should be laid at a particular place in the colony is ultimately a matter of technical feasibility keeping in view the requirement of ensuring efficient sewage disposal and its integration at a subsequent stage with the larger sewerage system. It can hardly be gainsaid that the Court lacks the technical competence to determine these issues. The Court can also not easily substitute the view of the agency that is entrusted with the task tm less it is demonstrated that the decision of such agency is so perverse or in violation of a statutory provision that it should be directed to be reviewed. The pleadings in the present case do not persuade this Court to conclude that the DJB has acted irrationally or in a perverse manner or contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 14 of the Delhi Water Board Act, 1998. 14. The Court is also not unmindful of the fact that generally there is some inconvenience caused to the residents of a colony, when an old sewer line is sought to be replaced by a new one. The inconvenience so caused to the residents has to be balanced against the greater benefit to the entire colony if a new sewer lane is laid. The inconvenience so caused to the residents has to be balanced against the greater benefit to the entire colony if a new sewer lane is laid. On an objective assessment of the facts on record, it appears that the benefits that would accrue to the residents of the Shankar Garden colony would far outweigh the temporary inconvenience that they may have to suffer. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this petition. 15. Having said this, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in the recent past during the construction of the Delhi Metro, which invariably involved huge digging and excavation exercises on main roads, care was taken to ensure that the least inconvenience is caused to the user of the main thoroughfare. There was a neat segregation of the area under excavation with the erection of entry proof barriers while at the same time ensuring adequate space for the passage of vehicles. There too there was some inconvenience caused to the users of the main road. However, the efficient manner in which the segregation was effected and the work completed within the time schedule, caused very little dissatisfaction among the general public. This Court is of the view the execution of the work of laying fresh sewer lines should be undertaken by the DJB on the name lines. 16. Ms. Takiar, learned Counsel for the DJB states that if the stay is acute the work will be resumed forthwith and that the DJB will ensure hat the sewer laying work is completed within a period of not later than ix months from today. The Court hopes that DJB will not spare any effort 1 completing the work not later than six months from now. It will make all efforts, in consultation with the residents, to ensure that their access to their respective houses is not unduly restricted and appropriate alternative arrangements are put in place for parking their vehicles. 17. The Court is, therefore, not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and to grant the relief sought by the petitioners. However, the Court expects the DJB to comply with the directions contained in para graphs 15 and 16 of this Order. 18. The Writ petition and the applications are, accordingly, disposed of. Writ Petition and Applications disposed of.