Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3544 (MAD)

M. Velusamy v. District Collector, Karur District

2017-11-02

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, M.VENUGOPAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : M. Venugopal, J. 1. Heard both sides. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. According to the Petitioner, there are more than 60 tenements living in Velliyanai Vadapagam (North) and the people living in that area are mostly agriculturists, agricultural labourers and downtrodden people and they are fighting for their livelihood by doing coolie and daily work. They are not in a position to ventilate their grievances to the Higher Officials even though there are health hazards in the locality. 4. There is a pond, which is called Veeraraghavan pond in Survey No.960 in Velliyanai Village, Karur District and it serves as a water body and fulfills the drinking water need of the people and act as a percolation pond, which recharges the ground water level when the rain water is filled up during rainy season. There are two feeding channels which passes through adjacent to Survey Nos.975, 976 and 974. The Petitioner along with other people of the locality are having their houses in Survey Nos.1125 and 1126. Also, there is a culvert in between two channels and then, it passes through Survey Nos.961, 962 and 963 to reach the Veeraraghavan pond in Survey No.960. 5. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to point out that in the recent past, the culvert is closed by the miscreants with the connivance of the Village Administrative Officer. Thereafter, the Veeraraghavan pond had not received any rain water. As a matter of fact, by the closure of the culvert, the rainwater inundated the houses in Survey Nos.1125, 1126, 974, 975 and 976. This causes much inconvenience and hardship to the residents in the locality. Besides this, the stagnation of water according to the Petitioner becomes the breeding place for the mosquitoes and other insects, as a result thereof, the people in the locality are infected with viral fever, malaria and dengue nowadays. Numerous representations were given to the First Respondent. But, they were all proved futile. 6. It is the version of the Petitioner that the Villagers and Agriculturist Association gave a call for 'Road Roko' to ventilate their grievances of the people in regard to removal of stagnated water, which is the breeding place of the mosquitoes, which paves way for diseases. But, they were all proved futile. 6. It is the version of the Petitioner that the Villagers and Agriculturist Association gave a call for 'Road Roko' to ventilate their grievances of the people in regard to removal of stagnated water, which is the breeding place of the mosquitoes, which paves way for diseases. In fact, a Peace Committee Meeting was conducted and assurance was given by the Authorities to redress the Petitioner's grievances forthwith. 7. The prime plea taken on behalf of the Petitioner is that the lethargic attitude of the Authorities paves way for the breeding of mosquitoes, which causes diseases like Dengue. As such, it is high time to take necessary steps for removal of stagnation of water and to prevent the spreading of Dengue. 8. In this connection, the Petitioner had given representations to the Respondents, dated 29.02.2016, 27.06.2016 and 03.10.2017, to remove the stagnation of water in the feeding channels and to remove the closure of the new culvert and allow the free flow of water by removing the thorny bushes and desilting of the channel passes through S.Nos.961, 962 and 963 to the Veeraraghavan pond. 9. In response, the Learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner in his representations, dated 29.02.2016, 27.06.2016 and 03.10.2017, had ultimately prayed for making permanent facility in regard to the removal of stagnated water etc. 10. Considering the fact that the Petitioner's representations dated 29.02.2016, 27.06.2016 and 03.10.2017 addressed to the Respondents, till date, have not seen the light of the day and there appears no progression in the subject matter in issue, at this stage, this Court without traversing upon the merits and contents of the aforesaid representations, simpliciter, directs the First Respondent to look into the aforesaid three representations of the Petitioner and to take a right, earnest and serious action in the subject matter in issue, by passing a reasoned speaking order, of course, after providing reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner and others concerned, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. 11. It cannot be gainsaid that the Authorities concerned shall take earnest steps to remove the stagnation of water in the feeding channels and also to remove the closure of the new culvert and allow the free flow of water by removing the thorny bushes and desilting of the channel passes through S.Nos.961, 962 and 963 to the Veeraraghavan Kuttai. 12. With the above said observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.