Judgment :- 1. The Appellants/Plaintiffs 1 & 2 have focused the present Second Appeal anim adverting upon the Judgment and Decree dated 20.08.1998 in A.S.No.43 of 1998 passed by the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 18.12.1997 in O.S.No.1224 of 1994 passed by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai. 2. A resume of narration of plaint facts, which are necessary for disposal of this Second Appeal are as follows: (i) The Appellants/Plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that the subject matter of the suit property is situated at Pattamangala Araya Street, Mayiladuthurai Town. The street runs in East-West directions. In the street, there are number of residents and there are nearly more than 100 houses in both sides (Southern and Northern sides). All of them could not be joined at the time of filing of the suit. As such, the Appellants are the Village Heads of the street and they represent the residents of the street. All their interest is common and as such, the Appellants/ Plaintiffs have filed the suit in a representative capacity and in this regard, the Interlocutory Applications filed by them have been allowed by the trial Court on 28.02.1995. (ii) The case of the Appellants/Plaintiffs is that in the street, there are residents colony, flat system houses, temples, marriage hall and business shops. The street is a main one leading to Railway Junction. All the houses on both rows of the street are having comfortable backyards. Beyond the backyard, there are conservancy lanes. The street and houses are very ancient. The houses have been constructed in such a fashion that they accommodate good drainage facilities through the backyard and the drainage channel is connected with the conservancy lane. In the type of the houses, the drainage water cannot be drained in the front side of the houses. If the 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Defendant (Municipality) wants to upkeep the sanitary conditions, it is enough if they keep the conservancy lane clean. (iii) The 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant (Municipality) for the reasons best known to them, for the benefit of someone have enunciated the scheme of putting up the open masonry drainage throughout the street. If the Municipality wants to put up an open masonry construction there ought to be some water course in which the drainage channel can be connected and the water from the channel may be drained. If the Municipality wants to put up an open masonry construction there ought to be some water course in which the drainage channel can be connected and the water from the channel may be drained. However, in the Appellants/ Plaintiffs street there is no proper drainage channel. A drainage channel, which has been in existence earlier, has been filled up in due course. There are no tanks or ditches in which the drainage water can be drained. So, the drainage channel should carry the water to a particular end and therefrom it has to be drained in the side of the street. Because of the stagnation of drainage water and silt, bad odour will emanate and the same will pave way for breeding of mosquitoes and insects. The street is an East-West street. The Eastern portion is lower than the Western one. The intended drainage is being located in a fashion that the water has to be carried out from Eastern side to Western side, which will be practically impossible. (iv) Continuing further, it is the plea of the Appellants/Plaintiffs that in the street, the Municipality water pipe line is on the ground level. Hence, in front of every houses, at huge costs, the house owners have constructed pits to take water from the pipe line. If a drainage is to be constructed, the pipe line has to be taken over the masonry drainage and there will not be flow of water. If it is going to be installed before the ground level. There are every possibility of drinking water and drainage water getting mixed up. On enquiry, the Appellants/Plaintiffs are able to know that there is no proper plan regarding the commencing point and other drainage facility of the intending drainage. The Appellants/Plaintiffs learn that the 2nd Respondent (Municipality) is obliging two flat system owners and it is pleasing them by putting such drainage system. (v) According to the Appellants/Plaintiffs, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant is a Contractor. The Respondents do not want the drainage in the road side, but they require improvement of conservancy lane, which can only improve the sanitary condition, for which there is already a councils resolution and sanction. The 2nd Respondent (Municipality) is not entitled to put up the drainage and there is no necessity for putting up such drainage. The Respondents do not want the drainage in the road side, but they require improvement of conservancy lane, which can only improve the sanitary condition, for which there is already a councils resolution and sanction. The 2nd Respondent (Municipality) is not entitled to put up the drainage and there is no necessity for putting up such drainage. (vi) The 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has dug the earth without any prior intimation and notice, which has caused lot of inconvenience to the street public. The access to the houses have been obstructed. The Appellants/ Plaintiffs have to reconstruct the same at huge cost. Therefore, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration to the effect that the Respondents/Defendants are not entitled to put up any open masonry drainage on either row of Pattamangala Araya Street and for consequential injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants, their contractors etc., from in any way putting up the drainage on either row of the street. 3. Before the trial Court, the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant has remained Ex-parte. 4. In the written statement, the 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant has taken a plea that the suit has been filed without mentioning the town survey number and the four boundaries and also the property schedule details have not been given clearly and as such, the suit has to be dismissed. The suit has to be filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs after obtaining prior permission from Government as per Section 142 (1) of the Public Health Act. Since the suit has been filed without prior permission from Government, it has to be dismissed in limine. 5. The 1st Appellate Court, viz., Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai while passing the Judgment in A.S.No.43 of 1998 on 20.08.1998 has inter alia observed that for laying the rain water drainage in Pattamangala Araya Street under Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Scheme, steps have been taken and implemented. The said proceedings have not been proved stating it to be against the public interest and per contra, the same is in favour of general public interest and for preventing the same, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have no manner of right and consequently, they are not entitled to get the relief of declaration and injunction and dismissed the Appeal with costs. 6. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, two issues have been framed for determination. 6. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, two issues have been framed for determination. On behalf of the Appellants/Plaintiffs, witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined and no documents have been marked. On the side of the Respondents/Defendants, witness D.W.1 has been examined and no documents have been marked. Also Ex.C.1 – Advocate-Commissioners Report dated 10.01.1995 and Ex.C.2 – Plan dated 10.01.19995 have been marked. 7. The trial Court after analysing the oral and documentary evidence available on record has come to a final conclusion that during rainy seasons, water will get stagnated in the Pattamangala Araya Street and there is no drainage for letting out the rain water and in the suit street, only for discharging the rain water, the drainage has been formed and as stated by the Appellants/Plaintiffs, it is not for sewerage construction. Further, the trial Court opined that the Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed the plaint without knowing the details as to what type of drainage is being constructed in the suit street and that they have filed the suit with a wrong intention. Moreover, since it has concluded that in the suit street, the rain water drainage formation is essential, the Appellants/Plaintiffs are not entitled to get the relief of declaration and injunction, resultantly, dismissed the Suit without costs. 8. At the time of Admission of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial question of Law: Whether the lower appellate Court erred in holding that the suit is bad for want of prior sanction from the Government under Section 142 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act when the Respondents wanted to implement Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Scheme, a Government of Indias Scheme? 9. The Contentions, Discussions and Findings on substantial question of law: The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs submits that the Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court in A.S.No.43 of 1998 dated 20.08.1998 is contrary to law and plight of evidence. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs that the 1st Appellate Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the suit is bad for want of prior permission from the Government as per Section 142 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act. 10. It is the further contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs that the 1st Appellate Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the suit is bad for want of prior permission from the Government as per Section 142 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act. 10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs puts forward a plea that the 1st Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that the 2nd Respondent wanted to implement Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Scheme, a scheme introduced by the Government of India and as such, the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act will not apply. 11. The stand of the Appellants/Plaintiffs is that the 1st Appellate Court has wrongly held that the 2nd Respondent is acting for the benefit of the entire residents of the street and the reasons assigned therefor are not a valid one. 12. Yet another submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs is that the 1st Appellate Court has not taken into account an important fact that the 2nd Respondent is acting only for the benefit of some of the owners of the multi-storeyed buildings in the street as made mention of by the Advocate-Commissioner in his report as well as in his evidence. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs urges before this Court that the Appellants/Plaintiffs have no objection for the 2nd Respondent to put up a closed drainage in the street. 14. Lastly, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs that the 1st Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.2 (Advocate-Commissioner) and Ex.C.2 Plan in proper and real perspective and also, that the Commissioners Report and evidence have been overlooked by the 1st Appellate Court in holding that no damage will be caused to the residents of the locality by the proposed construction of open drainage. 15. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent that both the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court have rendered a categorical finding that in the suit street, the construction of drainage is an essential one and also for letting out the rain water only the drainage has been constructed in the suit street. Also that the relief prayed for by the Appellants/Plaintiffs in the main suit viz., declaratory and permanent injunction are rightly negatived and this is not to be interfered by this Court sitting in Second Appeal. 16. The Appellants/Plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit, much less, to file the same in a representative capacity. The works of rain water drainage construction is being done by the 2nd Respondent (Municipality) and it is not carried out through the 1st Respondent/1st Defendant (Contractor). The 1st Respondent (Contractor) is an unnecessary party to the suit. Under the Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Scheme, the subsidy amounts have been given by the Union of India and the State Government and with those amounts, at a length of 260 metres, at an estimate of Rs.1.05 lakhs on the Southern side of the street, rain water drainage has been decided to be constructed and the downtrodden people will get employment on daily wage basis. 17. The Pattamangala Araya Street is one of the low lying areas and in this area, during rainy seasons, the rain water will get stagnated, which will cause health hazards to the public health and also causing damage to the road. The Thar flooring has been done at a cost of Rs.2.35 lakhs at the junction of Thiruvarur Road up to Thookanankulam and in this road, to avoid stagnation of rain water, the rain water drainage is one of necessity. Only during the rainy season for rain water discharge, the drainage is constructed and there is no need for drainage water to be let out. The Appellants/Plaintiffs, without understanding the scheme properly and with bad intention, have filed the present suit. The rain water drainage scheme during rainy seasons are to be maintained for general publics benefit and also the road is to be maintained. Since it is a Government scheme, it has to be completed before 31.01.1995 and a report has to be submitted to the Government. The suit is not maintainable in law. A cause of action has been invented for the purpose of the case. The suit has to be dismissed. 18. Since it is a Government scheme, it has to be completed before 31.01.1995 and a report has to be submitted to the Government. The suit is not maintainable in law. A cause of action has been invented for the purpose of the case. The suit has to be dismissed. 18. The trial Court after going through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1 and also considering the Exs.C.1 and C.2 has come to a conclusion that it cannot be construed that the construction of drainage in the suit street has been done to benefit the owners of the multi-storeyed buildings and also opined that there is evidence on the side of the 2nd Respondent that only for discharging the stagnant water during the rainy season in the street, the scheme has been framed and the scheme mentioned by the Appellants/ Plaintiffs is a different one and the scheme projected by the 2nd Respondent (Municipality) is a different one. Further, it has come to a categorical conclusion that for constructing a drainage in the street, the public in the street are to be benefitted in the common cause and while implementing the said scheme for the avowed object, there will be certain hindrances to the public and the same will remain till the completion of the scheme/ project. After the completion of the scheme/ project, the public will be benefitted and since, the pit is dug up for establishing the drainage and the water connection will have to be given by the Municipality, as such, the water connections are to be given by the Municipality and they are also to dig up the earth which is the duty of the Municipality and therefore, it cannot be said that the water connections are disconnected/disrupted by the Municipality. Moreover, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed the suit with a bad intention and they have also not known the details in regard to the construction of the drainage in the street and only for discharge of rain water in the suit street, the drainage construction has been made. Accordingly, it has not granted the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint. 19. It is useful for this Court to make a reference to Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 which enjoins as follows: “(27.) Local Authority to maintain public drains. Accordingly, it has not granted the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for in the plaint. 19. It is useful for this Court to make a reference to Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 which enjoins as follows: “(27.) Local Authority to maintain public drains. - (1) Every urban local authority shall, so far as the funds at its disposal may permit, provide and maintain a sufficient and satisfactory system of public drains for the effectual draining of its local area. (2) If, in the opinion of the Government, any local area or part thereof should, for any special reason, be provided with a system of public drains or with any other means of drainage, they may direct the local authority to provide or execute, within such time as may be fixed by them in this behalf, such works as may be considered necessary by them. (3) The local authority shall at all times keep in good repair all drains, cesspools and the like vested in or [belonging to it]” 20. As per Section 27 of the Act, the local authority is to maintain public drains. All the urban local authorities are under an obligation to provide drainage system so far as their funds permit. Power is there for the Government to issue necessary directions to the local authorities to provide public drains in any area. As a matter of fact, Section 27 of the Act is similar to Section 176 of the Chennai City Municipal Act and Section 137 of the District Municipalities Act. 21. It cannot be gainsaid that the functions of a Municipality Corporation are either Government that is public duties, such as the care of the health, of the people; or corporate that is, concerned with business or proprietary duties, such as the maintenance etc. Local authorities and their members are resultantly protected from any action, liability claim or demand whatsoever in regard to any matter or thing done bona fide for the purpose of executing the Act even though the thing done is not authorised by them. Where the statute vests them with discretion health officers are not held personally liable for errors of judgment, if they have acted in good faith. 22. Section 142 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 speaks of bar of suits and prosecutions in certain cases. Where the statute vests them with discretion health officers are not held personally liable for errors of judgment, if they have acted in good faith. 22. Section 142 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 speaks of bar of suits and prosecutions in certain cases. Thus, as per this section, no suit or prosecution will lie without a previous sanction of the Government. 23. Turning to the issue/joint relating to obtaining prior permission of the Government while filing the suit, the trial Court has clearly held that in certain terms that as per Section 142 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, prior permission of the Government is required to be obtained when a suit is to be instituted against a Local Authority (Municipality Administration) and the 2nd Respondent (Municipality) since it is a Local Authority, the maintenance of the drainage itself is its duty and since the suit has been filed without obtaining prior permission, the suit is not maintainable and consequently, dismissed the suit with costs. 24. The 1st Appellate Court has also in its Judgment in the Appeal has concurred with the findings rendered by the trial Court and has dismissed the Appeal with costs to the 2nd Respondent (Municipality). 25. The position of law as per Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is that concurrent findings on fact are not to be interfered with by High Court sitting in Second Appeal. In the instant case, the Appellants/Plaintiffs have not been able to establish before this Court that the findings of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are a perverse one either based on misleading of evidence or misinterpretation of any documents filed or otherwise. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court while dismissing the Suit and Appeal filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs, in the Judgment have given a cogent, reasonable and convincing reasons for negating the claims of the Appellants/Plaintiffs in regard to the declaratory relief as well as the relief of permanent injunction, which in the considered opinion of this Court do not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality or perversity warranting interference. 26. 26. Looking at from any angle, on balance, for the foregoing reasons and the detailed discussions as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the 1st Appellate Court as well as the trial Court have not committed any error of jurisdiction while arriving at the conclusion that the suit is bad for want of prior sanction as per Section 142 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act when the Respondents want to implement Jawahar Rojgar Yojana Scheme, a Government of Indias Scheme and accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the Appellants/Plaintiffs. 27. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court in A.S.No.43 of 1998 dated 20.08.1998 and the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.1224 of 1994 dated 18.12.1997 are hereby affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Appeal. No costs.