THE HONOURABLE MR v. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water SupplyDepartment, Fort

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.04.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A. KULASEKARANWP.No.47855/2006MP.Nos.2 to 4/06 & 3/071.S.Dhandapani2.S.Padmanaban3.S.Umapathy4.S.Muthukrishnan5.S.Parameswaran6.S.Bhavani7.S.Ramni8.GowriPetitionersvs.1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water SupplyDepartment, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 2.The District Collector, Trichy 3.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli.4.The Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai-55.The Trichirapalli City Municipal Corporation by its Commissioner ,Tiruchirappalli.6.Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Boardby its Managing Director, Chennai-5RespondentsPrayer:- This Writ Petition is filed under Art.226 of the Constitutionof India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the1st Respondent relating to the GO.(3-Pa) No.28 Municipal Administrationand Water Supply Department dated 20.11.2006, as published in the"Dhinakaran" daily dated 25.11.2006 and quash the said order.For Petitioners:Mr.M.Muniruddin SheriffFor Respondents:Mr.R.Viduthalai, AG for RR1to4Mrs. Sudarsana Sundar-R5ORDER1.The case of the Petitioners is that they are joint owners of 23,304sq.ft. of nanja lands comprised in T.S.No.2280/2 in Thiruvanai Koil, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Trichy District; that in earlier occasion, some of the respondentsherein attempted to dispossess the petitioners and that thepetitioners filed a suit in OS.No.161/2004 before the Sub Court,Trichy, wherein interim injunction was granted and the said suit isstill pending; that while things are such, the respondents issued GO(3D)No.28 Municipal and Water Supply Department dated 20.11.2006 underSection 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to acquire 17093 sq.ft of thesaid lands out of 23304 sq.ft comprised in TS.No.2280/2, invokingurgency clause under Section 17(2) of the said Act, dispensing withenquiry under Section 5A of the Act for the the purpose ofestablishing Sewage Pump for underground drainage system and the samewas published in the Tamil Daily 'Dinakaran' on 25.11.2006; that theRespondents have neither assessed the value of the lands in disputenor have deposited 80% of the land value as required by the Act; thatin view of the said acquisition proceedings nothing survives in thesuit; that the respondents failed to follow the mandatory provisionsof Section 17 of the Act; that alternative lands of Government isavailable in plenty, but the respondents deliberately decided toacquire petitioner's land and hence, several cases were filed from1967 onwards which were disposed of, now the present writ petition isfiled to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records from the1st Respondent relating to the GO.(3-Pa) No.28 MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply Department dated 20.11.2006, aspublished in the "Dhinakaran" daily dated 25.11.2006 and quash thesaid order.2.The case of the Respondents is that the 1st respondent issued GO.NO.24Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 23.7.2004,according administrative sanction for the implementation ofunderground drainage scheme in Trichirapalli City Corporation; thatthe petitioners knowing that their land has been proposed foracquisition filed a vexatious suit in OS.No.164/2004 and obtainedinterim injunction, without impleading the District Collector and theSpecial Tahsildar (LA) as the respondents and later they filedimpleading petitions, which were allowed; that the petitioners, in themean time, have filed WP.No.29937/04 before this court, which wasdisposed of 26.4.2006, directing the respondents to negotiate andarrive at a settlement and report it before 13.6.2006 and as per thedirection, notices were issued to the land owners on 6.6.2006; thatout of 8 land owners only 3 persons were present, out of them twopersons have stated that the compensation due to the acquisition landhas to be paid at the prevailing market rate and one person informedorally that he would take a decision after consulting his advocate,but nobody raised any objection for the proposed acquisition and finaldecision has not been arrived at and the same was reported to thiscourt and ultimately the said writ petition was dismissed; that basedon the administrative sanction order dated 23.7.2004, the Governmentin GO.(3D) No.9 Municipal Administration (MA3) Department dated17.6.2005 approved the draft notification Under Section 4(1) and draftdeclaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in theTamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 17.6.2005 and the abovenotification was published in the two local dailies Dinathanthi andMakkal Kural dated 23.6.2005 and the locality publication was made on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

24.6.2005; that the petitioners have filed another WP.No.23379/05,stating that their names are not found mentioned in the saidnotification, but their father's name, who died already, alone wasfound mentioned and the said writ petition was allowed andaccordingly, the 1st respondent issued GO.(3D) No.27, MunicipalAdministration and Water Supply Department dated 20.11.2006, cancelingthe earlier notification dated 17.6.2006 in accordance with law, whichwas published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No.322 dated20.11.2006 and in the local dailies Dhinakaran and Malai Malar dated25.11.2006 and the locality publication was made on 28.11.2006 and thedraft declaration under section 6 of the Act has been approved by theGovernment in their GO.(3D) No.31 Municipal Administration and WaterSupply Department 5.12.2006, which was published in the GovernmentGazette NO.334 dated 5.12.2006 and in the local dailies Dhinakaran andTamil Murasu on 9.12.2006 and the locality publication was made on21.12.2006; that the works relating to the said scheme completed about52 kilometers out of 59 kilometers and the sewage pumping station isyet to be constructed and that the sewage pumping station was fixed inthe proposed land acquisition site based on gravity of the land andsuitability of location and there is no alternative suitable siteexcept the proposed land to be acquired; that the under groundsewerage scheme was designed with a cost of Rs.120 crores inTrichirapalli Corporation and thereafter field survey was made and theproposed land acquisition site was selected for setting up of sewagepumping station and administrative sanction for installation ofsewerage pumping station was accorded to an extent of 17093 sq.ft inTS.No.2280/2; that in respect of averment that 11.44 acres of landsbelonged to Corporation is situated very nearer to the proposedsewerage pumping station, it is incorrect and it is not suitable forlocating the pumping station.3.The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that thenotification under Section 4(1) of the Act passed by the 1st respondentfor acquiring the petitioners lands invoking the urgency clause underSection 17(2) of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction and actuatedby mala fides and not justifiable on the facts and circumstances ofthe case; that invoking emergency clause under Section 17(2) of theAct and dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A is illegal as thereis no specific mentioning to the effect that enquiry under Section 5Aof the Act is dispensed with as per Section 17(4) of the Act todispense with the enquiry in the GO dated 23.7.2004; that therespondents ought to have noted that in WP.No.2555/1967 as early as13.9.1969, mandamus was issued directing the respondents not to enterthe lands without following the provisions of the Act; that for nearly39 years, no steps were taken and having slept for 39 years, therespondents are estopped from invoking urgency clause under Section 17(2) of the Act; that there is no justification to bye pass the regularprovisions; that the very conduct of the respondents will show thatthere is no urgency and that the District Collector alone is competentto issue notification under Section 4(1); that the enquirycontemplated under Section 5A is a valuable right of a person whoseproperty is sought to be acquired; that an order under Section 17(1)or 17(2) or 17(4) of the Act can be passed with respect to waste land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and it cannot be invoked with respect to land in which buildingstands; that the lands sought to be acquired is in the midst ofthickly populated residential locality and unfit for locating seweragepumping station; that the local residents have sent numerousobjections which has not been considered; that there are suitablegovernment poramboke lands available in TS.No.34/1 and 34/2 in WardIII, Block I and lands to the north of Vibuthi praharam, where theproposed pumping station can be located without causing any hardshipto any one; that there are 110.69 acres of government poramboke landsin TS.No.2065, 2069 and 2070; that in fact as present undergrounddrainage system is completed and the pumping station can easily belocated in the available poramboke lands without any extraexpenditure; that the lands are situated very near to SrirangamTemple; that if sewerage pumping station is located it will not onlyaffect the sanctity of the temple but will also lead to pollution, badsmell and will become a breeding place for mosquitos and cause severehealth hazards to thousands of pilgrims who visit the temple everyday; that it will affect the ecological balance in the locality.4.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisiondecision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Union of India andothers Vs. Mukesh Hans, Etc. (V-2004-SLT-712), wherein it was held asunder:-"28. A careful perusal of the above section showsthat sub section (1) of Section 17 contemplates takingpossession of the land in the case of an urgencywithout making an award but after the publication ofSection 9(1) notice and after the expiration of 15days of publication of Section 9(1) notice.Therefore, it is seen that if the appropriateGovernment decides that there is an urgency to invokeSection 17(1) in the normal course Section 4(1) noticewill have to be published, Section 6 declaration willhave to be made and after completing the procedurecontemplated under Sections 7 and 8, 9(1) notice willhave to be given and on expiration of 15 days from thedate of such notice the authorities can takepossession of the land even before passing of anaward.35.It is clear from the above observation of thiscourt that right of representation and hearingcontemplated under Section 5A of the Act is a veryvaluable right of a person whose property is sought tobe acquired and he should have appropriate andreasonable opportunity of persuading the authoritiesconcerned that the acquisition of the propertybelonging to that person should not be made.Therefore, in our opinion, if the appropriateGovernment decided to take away this minimal rightthen its decision to do so must be based on materialon record to support the same and bearing in mind theobject of Section 5A."5.The learned Advocate General for the Respondents has submitted that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this is a case where the lands are acquired invoking the urgencyclause and hence, preliminary inspection, preliminary enquiry,scrutiny of records, obtaining sufficient funds from the requisitionbody, ascertaining ownership were considered and draft notificationwas issued under Section 4(1) of the Act; that in earlier occasions,whenever the proceedings are initiated, the petitioners rushed to thecourt and obtained orders restraining the respondents from proceedingfurther; that the averment the respondents are avoiding porambokelands, but deliberately chosen the lands of the petitioners is false;that the said 11.44 acres of lands are far away from the present land,moreover, it is not all suitable for locating the pumping station andthat considering the technical feasibility and road gradient the landsof the petitioners were selected; that the averment that there is noorder under Section 17(4) of the Act, dispensing with the enquiryunder Section 5A is denied as untrue; that indeed the same isspecifically mentioned that the petitioners refused to receive thenotices, which were served by way of affixture in the doors in thepresence of the private witnesses; that the administrative sanctionfor installation of sewerage pumping station was accorded vide GO.(3D)No.24 Municipal And Water Supply Department dated 23.7.2004; that thevalue of the land is more than Rs.10 lakhs and hence, the Governmentis the competent authority to issue notification and not the Collectoras averred by the Petitioners; that considering the urgency, theenquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with and mentioning it,notification was made; that it is false to state that there arebuildings available in the lands in dispute and that it is waste landand that the petitioners' land is just behind the existing seweragepumping station at Vasudevan Street and that since the scheme is theexpansion of the existing scheme, the site is selected after acomplete technical investigation based on contour level and noobjections have been received from the general public and prayed fordismissal of this writ petition.6.The learned Advocate General for the respondents has relied on thedecision rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs.Krishnan Lal Arneja and others (2004-8-SCC-453), wherein it was heldin paragraph 16 as under:-"Section 17 confers extraordinary powers on theauthorities under which it can dispense with the normalprocedure laid down under Section 5A of the Act inexceptional case of urgency. Such powers cannot belightly resorted to except in case of real urgencyenabling the Government to take immediate possession ofthe land proposed to be acquired for public purpose. Apublic purpose, however laudable it may be, by itselfis not sufficient to take aid of Section 17 to use thisextraordinary power as use of such power deprives alandowner of his right in relation to immovableproperty to file objections for the proposedacquisition and it also dispenses with the inquiryunder Section 5A of the Act. The Authority must havesubjective satisfaction of the need for invokingurgency clause under Section 17 keeping in mind the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nature of the public purpose, real urgency that thesituation demands and the time factor i.e. whethertaking possession of the property can wait for aminimum period within which the objections could bereceived from the land owners and the inquiry underSection 5A of the Act could be completed. In otherwords, if power under Section 17 is not exercised, thevery purpose for which the land is being acquiredurgently would be frustrated or defeated. Normallyurgency to acquire a land for public purpose does notarise suddenly or overnight but some times such urgencymay arise unexpectedly, earthquake, flood or somespecific time bound project where the delay is likelyto render the purpose nugatory or infructuous. Acitizen's property can be acquired in accordance withlaw but in the absence of real and genuine urgency, itmay not be appropriate to deprive an aggrieved party ofa fair and just opportunity of putting forth itsobjections for due consideration of the acquiringauthority. While applying the urgency clause, theState should indeed act with due care andresponsibility. Invoking urgency clause cannot be asubstitute or support for the laxity, lethargy or lackof care on the part of the State Administration."and the decision rendered by the Apex Court in A.P.Sareen and othersVs. State of UP and others, (AIR-1997-SC-1284), wherein, it was heldas under:-"3. The land stands vested in the State under Section 17(2)read with Section 16 free from all encumbrances. Sinceinquiry under Section 5A has been dispensed with, as providedunder the Act, 80% of the compensation was required to begiven to the claimants. In this case, instead of adopting thesaid procedure, after publication of the notification underSection 4(1), they published the notification in the localnews papers in English as well as Hindi and also substancethereof in the locality and thereafter personal notices appearto have been issued to the owners of the lands. Aftercompletion of this process, proceedings were put up before theGovernment for publication of the declaration under Section 6which came to be made on April 18, 1996. The appellant filedthe Writ Petition on July 19, 1996 and consequently possessioncould not be taken. After the writ petition was disposed of,possession was taken on December 10, 1996. In this backdrop,the need of urgent possession was dissipated by beaurocraticinadvertence and the urgency did not cease. Urgency continuesas long as the scheme is not initiated, action taken andprocess completed."4. ...5..... In view of this stand taken by the Government, thedirection to conduct, an enquiry under Section 5A of the Actis of no material consequence on the facts of this case.Under those circumstances, we think that there is no https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ justification to quash the declaration under Section 6 and togive direction to conduct an inquiry under Section 5A." The learned Advocate General also relied on the decision rendered bythe Apex Court in Deepak Pahwa etc. Vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi andothers (AIR-1984-SC-1721), wherein, it was held as under:-"8. The other ground of attack is that if regard is hadto the considerable length of time spent oninterdepartmental discussion before the notificationunder Section 4(1) was published, it would be apparentthat there was no justification for invoking theurgency clause under Section 17(4) and dispensing withthe enquiry under Section 5A. We are afraid, we cannotagree with this contention. Very often personsinterested in the land proposed to be acquired makevarious representations to the concerned authoritiesagainst the proposal acquisition. This is bound toresult in a multiplicity of enquiries, communicationsand discussions leading to delay in the execution ofeven urgent projects. Very often the delay makes theproblem more and more acute and increases the urgencyof the necessity for acquisition. It is, therefore, notpossible to agree with the submission that mere prenotification delay would render the invocation of theurgency provisions void."7.This court considered the submissions of the learned counsel on eitherside and also perused the material records placed. The earlier writpetitions filed by the petitioners predecessors and the petitionersare not relevant at this stage, hence, the same is not narrated again.Similarly, the pending suit in O.S. No. 161 of 2004, as admitted bythe petitioner's counsel became infructuous in view of the fact thatproceedings under Land Acquisition Act is initiated.8.The petitioners possessed 53 cents or 23304 sq.ft in TS.No.2280/2.The Government in their GO.(3D)No.24, Municipal and Water SupplyDepartment dated 23.7.2004 have accorded sanction for acquisition of17093 sq.ft of land out of 23304 sq.ft in TS.No.2280/2, leaving aportion of the land in TS.No.2280/2, in which the building is locatedand the petitioners are residing. The Government approved 4(1)Notification in their GO.(3D) No.28 Municipal and Water SupplyDepartment dated 20.11.2006, which was published in Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette No.322 dated 20.11.2006 and the same was publishedin the Tamil Dailies Dinakaran and in Malai Malar on 25.11.2006. 9.It is stated that already an existing sewage pumping station islocated in TS.No.2280/1 adjacent to the petitioners' property and thepetitioner's land is urgently needed for the execution of the NationalRiver Conservation Project as well as for the provision of seweragefacilities for the residents of Srirangam. It is further stated by therespondents that out 59 kilometers, 52 kilometers work was completed.Notices sent by the respondents under the Act and Rules to thepetitioners were refused to be receive by them and the service waseffected by way of affixture. 10.The respondents invoked Section 17 of the Act, under which specialpowers are given in case of urgency and the Section 17 of the Land https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Acquisition Act reads us under:-"Special powers in cases of urgency: (1) In cases of urgency,whenever the appropriate Government so directs the Collectorthough no such award has been made, may, on the expiration offifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned inSection 9, sub section (1) take possession of any land neededfor public purpose. Such land shall thereupon vest absolutelyin the Government, free from all encumbrances.(2) Whenever, owing to any sudden change in the channel of anynavigable river or other unforeseen emergency, it becomesnecessary for any Railway Administration to acquire theimmediate possession of any land for the maintenance of theirtraffic or for the purpose of making thereon a river-side orghat station, or of providing convenient connection with oraccess to any such station, or the appropriate Governmentconsiders it necessary to acquire the immediate possession ofany land for the purpose of maintaining any structure or systempertaining to irrigation, water supply, drainage, roadcommunication or electricity, the Collector may, immediatelyafter the publication of the notice mentioned in sub section(1) and with the previous sanction of the appropriateGovernment enter upon and take possession of such land, whichshall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from allencumbrances:Provided that the Collector shall not take possession of anybuilding or part of a building under this sub section withoutgiving to the occupier thereof at least forty eight hours'notice of his intention so to do, or such longer notice as maybe reasonably sufficient to enable such occupier to remove hismovable property from such building without unnecessaryinconvenience.(3) In every case under either of the preceding sub sections,the Collector shall at the time of taking possession offer tothe persons interested compensation for the standing crops andtrees if any on such land and for any other damage sustained bythem caused by such sudden dispossession and not excepted insection 24 and in case such offer is not accepted, the value ofsuch crops and trees and the amount of such other damage shallbe allowed for in awarding compensation for the land under theprovisions herein contained.(3A) Before taking possession of any land under sub section (1)of sub section (2) the Collector shall, without prejudice tothe provisions of sub section (3):-(a) tender payment of eighty per centum of the compensation forsuch land as estimated by him to the persons interestedentitled thereto, and (b) pay it to them, unless prevented by some one or more of thecontingencies mentioned in section 31, sub section (2) andwhere the Collector is so prevented, the provisions of section31, sub section (2) except the second proviso thereto, shallapply as they apply to the payment of compensation under thatSection. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (3B) The amount paid or deposited under sub section (3A) shallbe taken into account for determining the amount ofcompensation required to be tendered under Section 31, andwhere the amount so paid or deposited exceeds the compensationawarded by the Collector under Section 11, the excess may,unless refunded within three months from the date of theCollector's award, be recovered as an arrear of land revenue.(4) In the case of any land to which, in the opinion of theappropriate Government, the provisions of sub section (1) orsub section (2) are applicable, the appropriate Government maydirect that the provisions of section 5A shall not apply and ifit does so direct, a declaration may be made under Section 6 inrespect of the land at ay time after the date of thepublication of the notification under Section 4, sub section(1).11.It is evident from the above said Section 17 that as per Section 17(1), the Government can taken possession of any land on the expirationof fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice mentionedin Section 9 (1), though no award has been passed. The object ofSection 17(1) is that when there is an urgency for execution forpublic purpose, that can be done expeditiously by taking possession ofthe land without waiting for the award, however, subject to otherconditions mentioned in sub clauses of Section 17. Section 17(2)empowers the Collector to take possession of the land, immediatelyafter the publication of the notice mentioned in sub section (1) andwith the previous sanction of the Government. It is needless tomention that it can be invoked only in cases of sudden change in thechannel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency for anyRailway Administration to acquire the immediate possession of land forthe maintenance of their traffic or for the purpose of making thereona river side or ghat station. As per amended Section 17(2),acquisition is possible even for dwelling houses for the poor and forvarious other purposes. To protect the interest of the land ownersalso, amendment was made thereby directing deposit of eighty percentum of the compensation as estimated by the Collector before takingpossession. It is not in dispute that the the property is worth morethan Rs.10 lakhs and hence, the Government is the competent authorityto issue notification and accordingly, the notice impugned in thiswrit petition was issued.12.Section 17(4) provides that in cases where the appropriate Governmenthas come to the conclusion that there exists an urgency or unforeseenemergency as required under sub sections (1) or (2) of Section 17, itmay direct that the provisions of Section 5A shall not apply and ifsuch direction is given then 5A enquiry can be dispensed with anddeclaration may be made under Section 6 on publication of 4(1)notification possession can be made. Enquiry under Section 5A is avery valuable right of a person whose property is sought to beacquired and he should have appropriate and reasonable opportunity ofpersuading the authorities concerned that the acquisition of theproperty belonging to that person should not be made. If theGovernment decided to take away this minimal right then its decisionto do so must be based on materials on record to support the same and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bearing in mind the object of Section 5A.13.In this case, it is alleged that out of 59 kilometers, 52 kilometerswork was already completed and further work could not be proceededuntil the land in dispute is acquired and pumping station is erected.This court is of the considered view, after perusing the materials onrecord that urgency expressed by the respondents is established.14.In so far as the ground of attack that considerable period has lapsedbetween the introduction of the scheme and the present notificationand hence, there was no justification for invoking the urgency clause,dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A is concerned, the petitionersfiled number of cases against the authorities, which resulted in amultiplicity of enquiries, communications and discussions leading todelay in the execution of this urgent project and the said delay wouldnot render the invocation of the urgency provisions void, as has beenheld in Deepak Pahwa etc. Vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi and others (AIR-1984-SC-1721) cited supra.15.In so far as the averment that alternative lands are not acquired,but the respondents deliberately chosen only the lands of thepetitioners is concerned, the respondents in their counter, havecategorically stated that the available poramboke lands are notsuitable for the installation due to distance, technical feasibilityand gravity of the lands and that the proposed land was selected basedon the contour level. It is further submitted by the respondents thatthe proposed site is just behind the existing sewerage pumping stationat Vasudevan Street and the said scheme is sought to be implementedfor expansion of the existing sewerage system. Hence, the saidaverment that alternative lands are not acquired is untenable in law.16.In so far as the other argument of the petitioners that the Collectoris the competent authority to issue notification, but whereas in thiscase, the same was issued by the Government, is concerned, it isreplied by the respondents that for exceeding Rs.10 lakhs, theauthority competent to issue the notification is the Government andhence, the said averment cannot also be accepted.17.In respect of the other averment that sanctum and sanctuary of thetemple will be affected by the plant, the same can be taken care of bythe respondents by providing necessary protection and applyingtechnical and scientific infrastructures. In this case, declarationunder Section 6 of the Act was made in the Government Gazette on5.12.2006 and publications in the Newspapers were made on 9.12.2006and 1.12.2006 following the mandatory provisions. 18.With regard to the averment that certain amount was deposited in thecivil court, which is prior to the 4(1) Notification, the learnedAdvocate General, on instructions, has submitted that 80% of theamount will be deposited in accordance with law in time and the sameis recorded. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19.In view of the above said discussions, this writ petition is liableto be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.Consequently, the connected Mps are closed.SrcmSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water SupplyDepartment, Fort St.George, Chennai-9 2.The District Collector, Trichy 3.The District Revenue Officer, Tiruchirappalli.4.The Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai-55.The Trichirapalli City Municipal Corporation by its Commissioner,Tiruchirappalli.6.Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Boardby its Managing Director, Chennai-5+ One cc to M/s. Sudharshana Sundar, Advocate SR 28140+ One cc to P. Srinivas Advocate SR 28019+ One cc to Mr. M. Munir Sheriff, Advocate SR 28370+ One cc to Govt Pleader SR 28020SSV (co)sg 15/5/07WP.No.47855/2006 24.4.2007