THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Contempt Case No. 1220 OF 2011 ORDER: This contempt case has been initiated by the writ petitioner complaining that the respondent – Secunderabad Cantonment Board has deliberately and willfully failed to implement the orders passed by this court on 8.8.2011 in WPMP No. 25720 of 2011 in WP No. 21130 of 2011. The Writ Petition No. 21130 of 2011 has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents – Secunderabad Cantonment Board in depriving and discontinuing the drainage facility provided to Bungalow No. 215/A, Gymkhana Road, Secunderabad, Secunderabad, as illegal. It is contended that the writ petitioner was the owner and possessor of Bungalow No. 215/A, Gymkhana Road, Secunderabad Cantonment, Secunderabad and he was in occupation of the same for the past few decades and that there is a drainage facility provided to the said premises and that the waste waters from the premises are discharged into a connecting drain maintained by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board at a little distance away in the form of an open drain called locally as `Picket Nala’. But, however, in the 1st week of July 2011, the officials of the Cantonment Board have unjustly blocked the drainage discharge facility and they have also resisted any repairs to be undertaken to the said drainage. Entertaining the said writ petition, this court passed an interlocutory order on 27.7.2011 directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Cantonment Board and the respondent – Cantonment Board was directed to dispose it of within a period of two days from the date of receipt. It is now stated that the representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner was rejected by passing a detailed order on 20.7.2011. However, when the matter was taken up by this court on 5.8.2011, a factual inspection was ordered to be undertaken so as to satisfy that the drainage connection to the residential portion of the premises in occupation of the petitioner is not totally disconnected and that it is functional. When the matter was taken up for further consideration on 8.8.2011, a detailed order was passed, the relevant portion of which is to the following effect: “…………… Leaving the liberty for challenging the validity of the proceedings dated 20-07-2011, the Cantonment Board is directed to ensure that the drainage connection which is in existence to Bungalow No.215/A as shown as adjoining to Gymkhana Road of the Secunderabad city be made functional so that no inconvenience is caused to the residents of the said Bungalow No.215/A. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri Imran Khan had stated that the petitioner has got no connection whatsoever with regard to the mechanized laundry and National Technical Service Center. Hence, we are not concerned with the said drainage connection of those two units. Insofar as Modi Ford, which has been using the connection is concerned the objection of the learned Standing Counsel is that without obtaining an appropriate permission from the Cantonment Board for the drainage connection, an illegal drainage connection has been taken and it is being put to use. Sri Imran Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for the past 5 years the said connection is in operation and without providing even an opportunity, orders of disconnection have been passed. In view of the fact that separate action has to be taken, I consider it inappropriate to express any final opinion in this regard, in this matter. However, the drainage connection to Bungalow No.215/A and also the drainage connection only to the Modi Ford Service Station be restored. So far as the drainage connection to Modi Ford Service Station is concerned, it will be operational for a period of one month from today, unless, an appropriate sanction or order is obtained in that regard. If this exercise were to result in laying any additional lines by procuring additional material or executing any additional civil works, appropriate bill can be raised on the petitioner.” Now the present contempt case is instituted complaining violation of this order. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed in the writ petition as well as in this contempt case. I have also heard Sri Md. Imran Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Cantonment Board. The order passed by this court, it appears to have been understood differently by both the parties. I must confess, the order has sufficiently left such a scope. Restoration of the drainage facility to the premises occupied by the petitioner is one aspect of the matter while it would be altogether a different matter to provide for a regular/permanent drainage connection. It is now brought out that the expenditure of approximately Rs.1,40,000/- is required for providing a regular drainage connection so as to allow the waste waters generated in the premises in question to be discharged into the Picket Nala operated by the Cantonment Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in terms of Section 216 of the Cantonments Act, the expenses for construction of any drain, in accordance with second proviso of Section 216, has got to be made out of the cantonment fund. However, I consider it appropriate to modulate the entire exercise in the following manner: (1) The Secunderabad Cantonment Board will immediately undertake and accomplish laying a regular/viable drainage connection so as to ensure that the waste waters from the premises of the petitioner herein are discharged into Picket Nala or any other main drainage run or managed or operated by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board. (2) A faithful account of the entire expenditure incurred in that regard be maintained. (3) The entire work shall be completed within 30 days so that the waste waters generated from the premises of the petitioner are not discharged into any open area causing inconvenience/nuisance to others. (4) The petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- with the Registrar (Judicial) of this court within 15 days, to the credit of the writ petition. Upon such deposit being made, the Registrar (Judicial) will transmit the same to the respondent – Secunderabad Cantonment Board. (5) The payment made by the petitioner in this regard will abide by the result in the writ petition. (6) However, the Secunderabad Cantonment Board shall complete the work in this regard without awaiting for the payment to be received from the Registrar (Judicial) of this court. With this order, the contempt case stands disposed of. I have passed this order in the extra-ordinary circumstances that are prevailing, as normally while entertaining a contempt of court action, no further clarificatory orders are generally passed. ------------------------------------ Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 16th December 2011