IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 247 OF 2009 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2004 SHRI. SAUSTHAN SHANTADURGA CHAMUNDESHWARI KUDTARI MAHAMAYA ... Applicant Versus SHRI. SUHAS DATTARAM SHIERKAR ... Respondent Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar,Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.D.Padiyar, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 8th May, 2009 P.C. The respondent in this second appeal has taken out this application for the directions inter alia with regard to the filth created by the lack of proper drainage of water from the toilet or bathroom of the house of the respondent's in which the families of some 2-3 priests of the respondent live. The respondent has produced two photographs to show a cesspool created by the drainage system which has failed. The appellant admits the position as shown in the photographs. The respondent's case is that water cannot be drained because the septic tank which is behind the house of the priests is not functioning. This stands to reason. The photographs show the water collected and the septic tank is admittedly drowned thereunder. This would be a health hazard in the summer and monsoon time. It may even cause outbreak of Malaria to the respondent's residents. The appellant is one such resident. It would be in his interest also to clear the cesspool to have habitable living conditions around or near his house. 2. It is the appellant's case that the respondent has done this on purpose and with an ulterior motive. The respondent has increased the number inhabitants in the house. Hence, the water usage is correspondingly increased and hence, the water overflows. This argument does not stand to reason. If the drainage and sanitation system is well maintained any amount of water that can come out of tap would find its own way without creating cesspool or blockage within the septic tank which is meant for the purpose of such clearance. 3. It is undoubtedly clear that the septic tank needs repair and sanitation is required to be improved. The respondent has complained about the nuisance created by the cesspool. The Director of Health Services, Govt. of Goa has issued a notice to the respondent under Section 40 of the Goa Public Health Act, 1985(the Act). My attention is drawn to Chapter 6 of the Act regarding abatement of nuisances which are prejudicial to health. Section 38 deals with detection of such nuisance. Section 39 deals with information regarding nuisance. The Health Authority appeared to have procured the information upon the respondent's complaint. Section 40 deals with power of the Health Officer to abate nuisance. Under this section, the Health Officer is duty bound to issue notice within 7 days upon receipt of information or the knowledge relating to any such nuisance to the owner or the occupier of the premises in respect of which the nuisance arises or persons who are required to abate the nuisance, to execute the work and take such steps as may be necessary for that purpose within time fixed in the notice. The notice has been issued since 1.4.2009. The notice called upon the respondent to abate the nuisance by repairing the soak pit and clearing the dirty waste water within 5 days of the notice. The period has long since expired. In the interest of both the parties, the nuisance has to be abated. 4. The appellant contends that this is an attempt at interference with the property claimed by the appellant for which an interim injunction is granted. Hence, the appellant who is present in the Court and gives instructions to his Advocate, was called upon to himself abate the nuisance within 7 days from today. The appellant's Advocate states that it cannot be done for at least 15 days. Hence, the respondent's Advocate is directed to abate the nuisance within 7 days. The respondent's Advocate agrees to carry out the work of such repair of the septic tank to allow the drainage water to flow underground without creating any cesspool within 7 days from today. The respondents shall carry out the work as above. The respondent shall not construct any other soak pit or septic tank or any such structure. 5. The respondent has applied for repair to the house of the priests. The photographs showing the house having a crack on its upper right side is produced. The appellant has produced another photograph showing precisely the same crack cemented. Hence, this relief need not be granted. 6. The respondent does not press for the third relief applied for in the application relating to clear the way for the chariot of the respondent to pass in January each year. Hence, no order in that regard is passed at present. The application is disposed of accordingly. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. SMA