Kadichambadi village Presidentrep.by its PresidentA.Govindasamys/o.ArumugarmManal mettu streetKadichambadi postKumbokonam tk.,Tanjore district v. 1. Kumbakonam Municpality

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :: 11.06.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DHARMA RAO ELIPEANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELUWRIT PETITION No.4194 of 2004 & WPMP No.4933 of 2004 & WVMP No.1809 of 2004Kadichambadi village Presidentrep.by its PresidentA.Govindasamys/o.ArumugarmManal mettu streetKadichambadi postKumbokonam tk.,Tanjore district...Petitioner -vs-1. Kumbakonam Municpality rep.by its Commissioner Kumbakonam2. The Collector Tanjore district Tanjore3. The Tahsildar Kumbakonam...RespondentsThe writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, forbearing therespondents from dumping, storing and processing garbage waste and otherwaste materials in the vacant lands comprised in s.No.64/1, 2,5,6,S.No.65/1, 4, 3, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, S.No.68/2, 68/3A and 68/3BofKadichambadi village, Kumbakonam taluk, Tanjore district moreparticularly described in the writ petition schedule.For petitioner : Mr.Pitty ParthasarathyFor respondents : Mr.V.Subbarrayan and Mr.K.Rajkumar for R1 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R(Order of the Court was made by DHARMA RAO ELIPE,J.)The writ petition is filed for the issuance of a writ ofMandamus, forbearing the respondents from dumping, storing and processinggarbage waste and other waste materials in the vacant lands comprised inS.No.64/1, 2,5,6, S.No.65/1, 4, 3, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, S.No.68/2, 68/3Aand 68/3B of Kadichambadi village, Kumbakonam taluk, Tanjore district.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petitionare as follows:The petitioner is the President of the village Panchayat of Kadichambadivillage. The first respondent Kumbakonam Municipality announced a proposalto purchase lands at Kadichampadi village under the guise of putting up afertilizer godown in the village. Some of the residents expressed theirwillingness to sell their properties to the Municipality. But,subsequently, the villagers came to know that the lands are required onlyto dump garbage waste and other waste collected at Kumbakonam andtherefore, the offer made by the villagers were withdrawn. The villagersmade several representations to drop the scheme. Since, their request wasnot considered, the present petition was filed as 'PIL'.3. A counter is filed by the first respondent refuting theallegations made by the petitioner. The lands mentioned in the writpetition are not cultivated for the past 10 years and cannot be utilisedfor agricultural purposes. Hence, the above lands can be utilised onlyfor the purpose of either dumping garbage or storing water. Therefore,the owners of the lands sold the same to the Municipality for good price.As regards the allegation raised by the petitioner that the land ownersare forced to sell the lands is concerned, it is submitted that if theallegation is found to be true, the land owners could have given acomplaint to the police. But, no such complaint was filed. Even theTamil nadu Pollution Control Board has certified for the location of theabove compost yard and there is no possibility of pollution. As such,there is no possibility of or apprehending danger of any unknown diseaseand there is no threat to the right of individual right or property right.The petitioner is having the right to safeguard the villagers. But, he isnot entitled to stall the proceedings of the other elected body like thepetitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court set up committee to formulate solidwaste Management guidelines and the Committee has given mandatoryrecommendations for improving the sanitation in all Urban and Rural areas.Therefore, the first respondent Municipality is under compulsion to set upthe compost Yard immediately and work out the modalities for collection ofGarbage. Hence, dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for.4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gonethrough the materials available on record.5. This is a dispute between the Kadichambai Village and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kumbakonam Municipality regarding the dumping, storing and processinggarbage waste and other waste materials.6. Section 238 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 deals withAdjudication of disputes between local authorities which reads as follows: (1) When a dispute exists between a village panchayat or apanchayat union council or a district panchayat and one or moreother local authorities in regard to any matter arising underthe provisions of this or any other Act and the Government areof opinion that the village panchayat or the panchayat unioncouncil or the district panchayat and the other localauthorities concerned are unable to settle it amicably amongthemselves, the Government may take cognizance of the dispute,anda) decide it themselves, or b) refer it for inquiry and report, to an arbitrator or aboard of arbitrator or to a joint committee constituted for thepurpose.2) The report referred to in Clause (b) of sub section(1)shall be submitted to the Government who shall decide thedispute in such manner as they deem fit.3) Any decision given under Clause (a) of sub-section (1)or under sub-section (2) may be modified from time to time bythe Government in such manner as they deem fit, and any suchdecision with the modifications, if any, made therein underthis sub-section may be cancelled at any time by theGovernment.7. Therefore, as seen from the above provision of law, it is clearthat when there is a dispute between a village panchayat or a panchayatunion council or a district panchayat and one or more other localauthorities like the petitioner and the first respondent herein, powervests with the Government to either settle the dispute among themselves orappoint an arbitrator or board of arbitrators for conducting enquiry forthe purpose. After receiving the report, the Government can decide thedispute in such a manner as they deem fit.8. According to the petitioner, the proposed dumping of the garbagein the area would cause environmental hazards, besides causing healthproblems to the villagers. But, without invoking the said Section, thepetitioner has straight away approached this Court and obtained interimorder, by virtue of which the proposal of the first respondent has beenstopped. No reasons have been mentioned by the petitioner as to why hehas not invoked the provision of Section 238 of the Tamil Nadu PanchayatAct, whereunder the Legislature, in its wisdom, has provided the manner inwhich such disputes between local authorities shall be adjudicated.9. In the case on hand, when the first respondent Municipality andother local bodies tried to acquire the lands for dumping garbage or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ storing water, the writ petitioner, who is the elected President of thevillage, tried to stall the project or the action of the respondents inacquiring the lands for the above project, through this writ petition.Though the third respondent in his proceedings dated 11.12.2003 called forpeace talks with the prominent persons in the village and the petitionerto settle the issue peacefully, the petitioner did not participate in themeeting conducted on 11.12.2003 and 10.01.2004. But, the petitionerresorted to approach this court without resorting to Section 238 of thePanchayats Act and filed this writ petition as probono publico andobtained an interim order as a result of which, the above project of thefirst respondent was stalled from 2003. Furthermore, there is no materialon record that the petitioner has been empowered to file this writpetition by the Village Panchayat. When general elections were conductedin May 2006, the petitioner has not contested in the election andtherefore he is not the Village President now. Therefore, this writpetition cannot be entertained, as he has not taken necessary steps, afterhis term of office is over to continue to prosecute the case either in hisindividual capacity or as a person interested in the matter to prosecutethe case. Therefore we see no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly,this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connectedWPMP and WVMP are closed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarajr/RaoTo1. The Commissioner, Kumbakonam Municpality Kumbakonam2. The Collector Tanjore district Tanjore3. The Tahsildar Kumbakonam1 cc to M/s K.Rajkumar Advocate SR.NO.334861 cc to M/s G.Ethirajulu Advocate SR.NO.33490AVM(co)RD 3.7.07W.P.No.4194 of 2004 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/