IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-02-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.9894 of 2006 and W.P.No.18664 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 W.P.No.9894 of 2006: Mr.V.K.Palanivel .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Chengalpattu Region, Chenalpattu. .. Respondents. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings Roc.No.7194/02/WS2, dated 14.2.2006, quash the same and consequentially direct the first and second respondents to direct all the Municipalities to issue a work order only to the petitioner to any individual in the Chengalpattu Region. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Bharathidasan For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali Government Advocate (R1 & R2) W.P.No.18664 of 2009: Mr.V.K.Palanivel .. Petitioner. Versus 1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner, Hosur Municipality, Hosur. .. Respondents. PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to implement his own proceedings Na.Ka.No.5095/2005/E1, dated 22.8.2005, in which the petitioner was authorized/permitted to lay down the new house line pipe connection in so far as the petitioner concerned. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali Government Advocate (R1 & R2) O R D E R In W.P.No.9894 of 2006 the petitioner has challenged the circular in Roc.No.7194/02/WS2, dated 14.2.2006, issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, permitting the consumers to engage unlicenced plumbers, pursuant to the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.287, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election) Department, dated 5.11.1996. 2. In W.P.No.18664 of 2009 the petitioner had prayed for a direction to the second respondent to implement his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.5095/2005/E1, dated 22.8.2005. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in the above writ petitions, is that, in the Government Order, in G.O.(D) No.523, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 19.9.1995, it had been stated that the Government had proposed to recognise the certified plumbers to entrust the works relating to the local bodies, after collecting a deposit amount, as security. The Government had prescribed certain guidelines for approving the qualified plumbers. The said Government Order had been issued since, the work entrusted to the plumbers in the various local bodies, for giving tap connections to the houses, were not upto the mark and there were a number of complaints stating that the funds collected from the public had been misused. Therefore, the petitioner who is a licenced and certified plumber, has claimed that only licenced and certified plumbers should be permitted to give connections to the houses coming under the various local bodies. 4. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had submitted that the government had issued the Government Order, in G.O.Ms.No.287, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election) Department, dated 5.11.1996, permitting the unregistered and unlicenced plumbers to be engaged by the consumers, for giving tap connections to their houses. Though it was initially meant for a period of one year, it had been extended thereafter, by the circular, dated 14.2.2006, issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai, in Roc.No.7194/02/WS2. In such circumstances, it is not open to the petitioner to claim that unregistered and unlicenced plumbers should not be allowed to be engaged by the consumers, for providing tap connections to their houses. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason, for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner. The petitioner has not been in a position to show that he has a vested right to be engaged by the consumer, for providing tap connections to their houses, coming under the local bodies. Further, it is clear from G.O.Ms.No.287, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Election) Department, dated 5.11.1996, that the Government had permitted unregistered and unlicenced plumbers to be engaged by the consumers and thereafter, the said practice was continued by way of the circular, dated 14.2.2006, issued by the first respondent in his proceedings in Roc.No.7194/02/WS2. 6. In such circumstances, the writ petitions are devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that it is open to the consumers to consider engaging registered and licenced plumbers, along with the unregistered and unlicensed plumbers, to give tap connections to their houses in the local municipalities. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar csh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5. 2.The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Chengalpattu Region, Chenalpattu. 3. The Commissioner, Hosur Municipality, Hosur. +1cc to Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate Sr 6313 +1cc to Mr.T.Sundaravadanam, Advocate Sr 5983 +2ccs to Govt. Pleader Sr 6305,6310 RSM(CO) km/18.2. W.P.No.9894 of 2006 & W.P.No.18664 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/