JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to give water and sewerage connection to the premises in question, said to be belonging to the petitioner, in accordance with law, without insisting on the production of the completion certificate, by the petitioner. 3. It has been stated that the property in question, at Old Door No.63, New Door No.60-B, Rajaji Street, Vyasarpadi, Chennai, having an extent of 735 sq.ft. of land, had been obtained by the petitioner, by way of deed of settlement, dated 7.1.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner had constructed a pucca building, consisting of ground plus three floors. It had also been submitted that the property had been assessed, by the Corporation of Chennai, fixing the half yearly property tax at Rs.2,840/-. However, when the petitioner had approached the first respondent Board, by submitting an application, on 25.6.2012, for water and sewerage connection, the first respondent had insisted on the production of the completion certificate, from the second respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had produced before this Court, an order of this Court, dated 27.3.2012, made in W.P.No.3384 of 2012. Paragraph 5 of the said order reads as follows: "5. Considering the above facts and circumstances and considering the order stated supra, I am inclined to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of water and sewerage connection in accordance with law. The petitioners have to comply with the provisions as per law. On such compliance, it is open to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the claim of the petitioners for the said connection and the said exercise has to be carried out within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 5. The petitioners have to comply with the provisions as per law. On such compliance, it is open to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the claim of the petitioners for the said connection and the said exercise has to be carried out within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 5. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent had filed a counter affidavit, dated 25.7.2012, wherein, it has been stated that the construction of the building, by the petitioner, in the premises in question, does not satisfy the norms prescribed by the High Court appointed Monitoring Committee, for the issuance of a completion certificate. It has been submitted that, since the construction put up by the petitioner is an unauthorised construction, as it is contrary to the development regulations, the completion certificate cannot be given, in respect of the said building. As such, the relief prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is devoid of merits. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, and in view of the number of earlier orders passed by this Court, including the order, dated 27.3.2012, made in W.P.No.3384 of 2012, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the first and the second respondents to consider the request made by the petitioner, for the grant of water and sewerage connection, in respect of the premises in question, on the petitioner complying with the necessary requirements, as prescribed by the relevant provisions of law. On such compliance by the petitioner, the first and the second respondents shall consider the request made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that, even if the water and sewerage connection is granted, by the first and the second respondents, as prayed for by the petitioner, it would not amount to the recognition or approval of the unauthorised construction, said to have been put by the petitioner, in the premises in question. It is also made clear that the petitioner would not be eligible to claim any further rights, on the basis of equity, or otherwise, in respect of the property in question. It is also made clear that the petitioner would not be eligible to claim any further rights, on the basis of equity, or otherwise, in respect of the property in question. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.