1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.02.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P(MD)No.735 of 2011 D.Paul Amar Singh .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Anna Maaligai, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Chief Engineer, South Zone, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Anna Maaligai, Madurai – 625 002. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2010 and to provide basic amenities such as road, drinking water and drainage etc., in Veeramudaiyan II Street, Kenett Nagar, Alagappan Nagar, Madurai–3 by extending the scheme within a time frame as fixed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Subbiah For Respondents : Mr.M.Jothibasu O R D E R The delay on the part of the Madurai Corporation to provide basic amenities to the residents of Veeramudaiyan II Street, Kenett Nagar, Alagappan Nagar, Madurai made the petitioner, who is a resident of the said area to file the Writ petition. 2.According to the petitioner, the Corporation miserably failed to take steps to provide proper roads, drainage and sanitation facilities at Kenett Nagar. Though some of the facilities were provided in Alagappan Nagar, it was not extended to Kenett Nagar. The issue of non maintenance of the road and absence of water supply and drainage facilities got the attention of the Media and reports were published in leading Tamil news papers. 3.Though time and again representations were given to the respondents, there was no follow up action. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition. 4.The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai in his counter affidavit submitted that the house of the petitioner is situated just adjacent to the Pandian Nagar area. The Corporation has framed a scheme for Pandian https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Nagar and they have already undertaken the work to provide basic facilities. The Corporation has taken a decision to extent the Pandia Nagar Scheme upto the petitioner's area and the work will be completed within a period of four months. 5.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6.The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition discloses the very poor condition of the roads and drainages in and around Kenett Nagar. The Corporation being the local self Government was expected to provide basic facilities to the residents. Their duty would not be over by collecting property Tax. The residents should be given the basic amenities. The public body constituted for the principal statutory duty of ensuring basic facilities including road, sanitation and health cannot outrage the Court by excuses. The Corporation is not doing any kind of charity. They are duty bound to provide the basic amenities to the people. 7.The first respondent in his counter affidavit indicated that they are ready to provide the basic amenities within a period of four months. The attempt of the first respondent should be to complete the work without waiting for the outer time limit of four months. The Corporation should see that the roads are repaired and the drainage and other facilities are provided at an earlier date. In any case it should not exceed the maximum period as under taken by the first respondent. 8.The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. MPK Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Anna Maaligai, Madurai – 625 002. 2.The Chief Engineer, South Zone, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Anna Maaligai, Madurai – 625 002. +1 cc to M/s.S.Subbiah, Advocate SR.No.9283. +1 cc to M/s.M.Jothi Basu, Advocate SR.No.9471. W.P(MD)No.735 of 2011 Dated:21.02.2011 2P/5C RPB 08.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/