Judgment :- This writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.29217 of 2010. 2. The appellant-Association filed the writ petition for a direction to forbear the respondents from constructing a pumping station in the play ground of Selaiyur Municipal Higher Secondary School comprised in S. Nos.84/B1 and 84/B3 of Selaiyur Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District on the ground that the decision of the authorities to construct a pumping station in an area earmarked as park and playground will affect the right of the children to have a proper playground, as the land in which the pumping station was proposed would encroach upon the school’s land, thus eating into the space meant for the playground. It was contended that the Selaiyur Municipal Higher Secondary School was constructed only in an area of 3.22 acres, as opposed to the minimum required extent of six acres of land for housing a school and if even further area is acquired for the purpose of putting up the pumping station, it will affect the right of the school children to have a proper playground. It was further contended that the construction of the pumping station was being contemplated without obtaining proper consent from the Government and if permitted, it would affect the inhabitants of the entire area in question. 3. The respondents opposed the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit stating that the land in S.No.84/B/1 measuring an extent of 3.22 acres is a Mandhaiveli Promboke and the immediate adjacent area as well as the adjoining area can be included in the underground drainage system only if a pumping station is established in the said place. The third respondent, after conducting a thorough investigation as to the feasibility and other factors, selected an extent of 900 sq. mts. from out of the site in question for locating the pumping station, which is only 7% of the total area. As regards the grievance that the pumping station would be a nuisance to the inhabitants, it was contended that the station was meant for catering to the needs of the fastest growing suburb of Chennai city, viz. the Tambaram Municipality, as it would be useful for conveying the sewage from the area and that it would not be used as a storage point. the Tambaram Municipality, as it would be useful for conveying the sewage from the area and that it would not be used as a storage point. It was submitted that there would be no discharge of effluent from the pumping station, nor would there by infiltration of the sewage into the ground water, thereby contaminating the ground water in the area. Insofar as the contention that no permission was obtained for putting up the pumping station was concerned, it was pointed out that the Selaiyur Municipal Council had, in its meeting held on 6.12.201, resolved that out of the 3.22 acres of available land, apart from the area allocated for the purpose of forming the road and the canal, in the remaining extent of 2.78 acres, 900 sq.mts. of land would be allocated for putting up the pumping station. Pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, the District Collector had also recommended the proposal for putting up the pumping station in the area in question. So far as protection of the playground meant for the school students and the park used by the general public, it was submitted by the respondents that they have taken adequate steps to construct a compound wall for securing the place. It was further submitted that the proposal has already been sent to the Government for its approval and the pumping station for implementation of the underground sewerage scheme would be constructed only after obtaining necessary permission from the Government and the authorities concerned. 4. In view of the assurance of the respondents that the pumping station would be put up only after acquiring the land from the Government and after obtaining due clearance from the authorities concerned, since the entire project was meant only for mitigating the difficulties of the locality vis-à-vis the underground sewerage system, the learned single Judge observed that there was no reason for placing an embargo on the plan of the respondents in implementing such public welfare project, especially in the absence of adequate ground putforth by the appellant-Association that its rights or that of any of its members was being singularly affected because of the project. The learned single Judge observed that the respondents having not encroached upon any water body or water course, there was no reason or justification to forbear them from going ahead with the construction, more so because it was a project involving the larger public interest as opposed to any private interest that the appellant-Association or any of its members might have, and such public welfare projects must be allowed to proceed without restraint, after following the due procedure as required by law. Recording the submission made by the respondents that they would take necessary approval from the Government for using the land in question for putting up the pumping station, the learned single Judge accordingly disposed of the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner-Association has filed the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned order on the ground that the very land in which the respondents were attempting to put up the pumping station exclusively belongs to the Selaiyur Municipal Higher Secondary School and is in its possession for the last ninety years. According to him, the learned single Judge ought to have noticed that there was willful negligence on the part of the respondents in not obtaining prior approval from the State Government before encroaching into the school playground and acquire 900 sq.mts. of the school playground for the purpose of putting up the pumping station and the respondents were trying to get away by giving a mere undertaking that they would ensure no serious prejudice was caused for the effective functioning of the school in the event of installing the pumping station. It was contended that the learned single Judge failed to note that the school was functioning in the said land for the past ninety years and was catering to the needs of poor students of the locality and therefore, the land cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed a mandhaiveli poromboke. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order was in direct conflict with the order dated 29.11.2002 passed by this Court in W.P. No.8762 of 1995, by which the right of the school to hold the land in question for itself was upheld, and the attempt of the respondents to take a portion thereof without following due process of law and without any intimation to the school authorities amounted to arbitrary exercise of power. It was also contended that the appellant-Association was not averse to public interest and welcomed any public welfare project sought to be implemented for the benefit of the larger public interest of the locality, but at the same time, it was opposed to illegal encroachment of public land by the respondents without following due process of law, especially when there was an alternative site within 200 meters of the school playground in S.No.82, which is an unused extent of land, which can be perfectly used for the purpose of putting up the pumping station. It was also contended that there cannot be any legally valid transfer or legally valid consent that could be given by any person other than the school committee and in the absence of such express consent, forcible use of the school land for the purpose of putting up any project would amount to illegal encroachment on the part of the respondents, by which the respondents were also violating Articles 45, 46 and 350-A of the Constitution protecting the right to education of the poor and downtrodden classes of the country. 6. At the very outset, we are of the view that the writ petition could not have been entertained as a public interest litigation. By reason of the alleged construction of the pumping station in the playground of Selaiyur Municipal Higher Secondary School, the body aggrieved is the Management of the said school. Curiously enough, the Management has not come to this court with any objection as to the construction of the pumping station in the playground. Be that as it may, admittedly a meager portion of the playground measuring 900 sq.mts., i.e., only 7% of the total area available with the school is proposed to be used for locating the pumping station. Indisputably, the proposed construction of the pumping station is meant for catering to the needs of Chennai city’s fastest growing suburb of Tambaram. It has been emphatically stated in the counter affidavit that there would be no effluent discharge from the pumping station, neither there would be contamination of the ground water in the area on account of seepage/infiltration of sewage into the soil. It has been emphatically stated in the counter affidavit that there would be no effluent discharge from the pumping station, neither there would be contamination of the ground water in the area on account of seepage/infiltration of sewage into the soil. The respondents have also categorically stated that in the meeting of the Selaiyur Municipal Council, it was resolved that out of the 3.22 acres of available land, excluding from the area allocated for the purpose of forming the road and the canal, from the remaining extent of 2.78 acres, an extent of 900 sq.mts. of land would be allocated for putting up the pumping station. The respondents have further stated that before commencing construction of the pumping station for implementation of the underground sewerage scheme, they have already sent a proposal to the Government for its approval and have assured that the pumping station would be constructed only after obtaining necessary permission from the Government and the authorities concerned. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. This writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it goes without saying that the Government or the authorities concerned before whom the proposal for construction of the aforesaid pumping station is pending shall consider the pros and cons of the proposed construction and thereafter grant sanction to the same in accordance with law. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2012 is closed.