THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 15959 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of premises bearing No.17/29-A, Edepally of Machilipatnam town. On the one side of her building, a big public drain exists. The area in front of the building constructed by the petitioner is said to be low lying. The road was not developed to the full extent. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Municipality on 28-08-2006 with a request to permit her to construct drain to avoid accumulation of water during rainy season. The respondent in turn gave an endorsement dated 27-01-2007, stating that, in case the petitioner arranges the necessary finances, the drain would be constructed under the direct supervision of the Municipality and in accordance with the plans prepared by them. The petitioner states that neither the amount is stipulated, nor plans are prepared, and in the process, no drainage is provided for the accumulated water. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to permit her to construct the drain. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit. It is alleged that the petitioner has deviated from the sanctioned plan, and has encroached the road margin. It is also stated that the house of the petitioner is in a developed area, and the cement concrete road with drains on either side would be constructed before the house of the petitioner, as long as necessary funds are available. They also offered to construct the drain, in case the petitioner arranges the funds. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The effort of the petitioner is to ensure that no rainy or other water accumulated in front of her premises. Normally it is the duty of the Municipality to provide such facilities. However, the work at the concerned place was not taken up, may be on account of paucity of funds. It is not a case where the Municipality remained oblivious to the representation made by the petitioner. They promptly responded by stating that, in case the petitioner is willing to meet the expenditure, the drain would be constructed. The petitioner did not avail that opportunity, by stating that the amount is not stipulated. She could have very well approached the respondent for this purpose. Even if the petitioner is willing to meet the expenditure, the construction of the drain must be in accordance with the plans prepared by the respondent. The reason is that, it would be a continuation of the drain, passing through the other portion of the street. The petitioner cannot be permitted to make construction, which may not be an alignment with the drain, that may be constructed running across the street. Even now the petitioner can make the deposits of the estimated cost of construction to the extent the drain run, in front of the house of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondent shall indicate the cost of construction for the drain in front of the house of the petitioner, within four weeks from today. The petitioner, in turn, shall deposit that amount, within two weeks thereafter. On such deposit, the construction shall be completed within two months. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.01-06-2010. KO