Summary
The Madras High Court, in a residents' PIL, ordered the sewerage board to finish a 110-metre stretch of sewer line across a road the petitioner claimed to own. He was impleaded only when the PIL was finally disposed of. The Supreme Court accepted that he had not been heard. It nevertheless declined to remit the matter: the line had since been completed as a public amenity with no stay in place, and his title was disputed in a civil suit. It left him free to claim compensation and damages if he establishes title before a competent court. The Board's challenge to an earlier appellate order was not examined because the work was complete.
Issues
- Whether an order in a public interest litigation directing completion of a sewerage line over land claimed by the petitioner, passed without giving him an adequate hearing, should be set aside after the work had been completed.
Provisions considered
- Section 67(3), Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978The Board invoked the provision by order dated 19.06.2015 to lay the sewer line along the disputed stretch, which the petitioner challenged. (¶ 3)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaAlthough the petitioner had a legitimate grievance about the lack of a hearing, the Court moulded relief instead of remitting, since restoring the status quo ante was impracticable. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Held
- The petitioner had a legitimate grievance that the PIL order directly affected his rights without an adequate hearing, as he was impleaded only on its final disposal. (¶ 10)
- Remand would not resolve the controversy: in the absence of a stay the sewer line, a public amenity, had been completed, removing it would be impracticable, and the petitioner's title was itself under civil dispute; his claim at the highest is for damages and compensation, which he is at liberty to pursue on establishing title before a competent court. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 15)
- The Board's challenge to the Division Bench order of 27.04.2017 requiring a less damaging option need not be examined in view of the completion of the work. (¶ 14)
Result
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27337 of 2017 against the Madras High Court judgment dated 03.10.2017 in W.P. No. 25595 of 2017, and the Board's Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35197 of 2017, disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his claim for compensation and to establish his title in accordance with law.