r ^. HtGH COURT QF CHMATTJSGARH: BJLASPUR Singie Bersch : Nors?bie Shri JysiJce Vijay Kvmar Shrivastava WRIT PETITiON N0. 5132 OF PETITIONER Prtyadarshini Griha Nirman Sahkari .Samitl Mar>'adjt, Raipur, at 445-B, Priyadarshini • Nagar, Raipur, C.G., through its Presldent Shri Rajesh Shrivastava,Raipyr,C.G.- . Versys RESPONDENTS 3. P.C: Shukla, aged 69 years, s/o. Late Shri B.P. ShukJa, r/o. 469, Priyadarshini Nagar, Rmg, Road No.1, RaIpur.CG. Municipal Corporation, Raipyr, through Ite Commlssloner, Ralpur, C.G. Commisssoner, ^y.nlcipai Corporatlon, Rajpur, CG. Present:- -Shri Blshma Klnger, Jeamed counse! for the petltioner,, Shri Gautam Bhaduri, tearned counsei for respondent NoJ. Shri H.B. Agrawal, feamed Sr. Advocate with Shri Manteh Agrawai, learned counse! for respondents No.2 and 3. QRALORDER (Passed on 2 February, 2007) This petition under Articte 226/227 of the Constitytion of Indja'has' been preferred seeking foSiowing relief : " The respondents are restralned from taking any actlon or st©pthat may dir@ct!y or indlrectiy affed adverseiy the interests of the petitioner and aiso other group members *n respect of the sald septjo tank uniess and yntii ail the jnvojved may .mutualSy and In wrlting dedde otherwise." 2) The petitioner Js a regsstered society who sotd plof No.468 to respondent No.1 and thereafter constrycted the house tb.r hsm under certajn conditions and agreement. Petitloner society also construcAeci houses under various agreements for other pipt owners. For ten adjoining plots, independent ten houses having common septic tank have been constructed by the petitioner. The common septic tank was constructed inside the plot of respondent No.1. Respondent No/l feeiing offended with nuisance of common septsc tank requested the petitioner tor shifting the same and to solve his probSem, but his compiaint was not adhered to by the petttioner, therefore, he reported the nna'tter to yunicipai Corporation, Raipur. As a result of the said comptaint, Commissioner, Municipai Corporation, Raipur, had issued order dated 30- 9-2005 (Annexure-P/4) whereby petitioner was directed to construct SQparate septlc tanks for other nine house. 3) Respondent No-1 contested the petrtion ^er alla on the ground that without his knowledge and permsssion a common septic tank has •been constructed by the petitloner In hls land, Vyhich is caysing Inconvenience to him, therefore, sn order to avoid consuming foyj smejl' and polluted air, he first represented his grlevances before the petitioner, who did not care to soive it, therefore, he reported the matter to SViunicipal Corporation, Raipur, who, in accordance wsth the Munjclpal law, issued the impugned order..- Respondents No.2 and 3 aSso contested the petition. They aiso raised objection that if petitioner is aggrieved by order of the Commissioner, he should have preferred appeai as provided under Section 403 ofthe Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for brevlty "the Act"). 4) Aithough petitioner aiong wjth his petition annexed some documents, but did not fi3e those documents which may estebJish sanction o? any. authority to constryct a comrnon • septic'tank for ten- adjoining independent houses. Petitioner aiso failed to file any agreement to show that respondent NoJ gave hls consent to build a common septlc tank for other adjoining houses In his own plot Even sale deed or document fited by the' petltioner did not unveil that respondent No.1 was F" .\l- wJiling or has knowingly aiiowed construction of a common' septio tank for other adjojning nine houses in his plot. Respondent No.1 .aiong wsth his return has filed occupatlon report, rrsap of hss house and certlficate issued by the petitioner. A!l these documents also did not dlsclose that common septic tank was constructed with permission of respondent No.1.. 5) It is not out of place to mention that resp.ondent No.1 snitially approached the petitioner for his grievances' and thereafter he todged a compteint befbre the Commissioner, Municipai Corporation, Raipur. Section 195 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to pass orders for removal of iatrine and sewage. Under Section 403 of the Act, a provislors for appeai has been made and any notice or order issued ynder Sectson 195 of the Act, has been made appeaiabie, therefore, Annexure-PN was appeaiable i.n accordance with Section 403 ofthe Act. 6) Evidentiy, there Is no material to show that a common septic tank in piot of respondent No.1 has been constructedl with eonsent & permission of respondent No.1 and even othenfVise no prudent person can agree to it. 7) it js apparent that the impugned order in absence of proper hearing will cause prejudice to those other nine persons whose sewage line is attached with this common septic tank,. The Commissloner, Nynticipal Corporation, Raipur, (respondent No. 3) shail serve show cause notloes to other nine occupants and shaii forrrs his opinton after affordlng opportunity of hearing to them or.shall inspect the spot for forming his oplnion and record his findlng wjthln 15 (Tifteen) days, thereafter forthwith to pass orders in accordance with Sectian 195 of the Act and to implement it in accordance with the provisions of the Act. During the above period of 15 (fifteen) days, if •petitioner or other interested person raises any objection that may aSso be considered to form opinion as required under the Act. 8) With the aforesaid directjons, the petition stands clisposed of« Raju Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge