MADHULATA KANKANI Vs. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR persons have joined together in this writ petition dated September 20th, 2006 seeking a mandamus commanding the Kolkata Municipal corporation to take necessary steps for supplying water to them and also to grant permission to operate the deep tube well sunk in the premises concerned.

(2.) THEIR case is this. They have been residing in the premises at 10, bakery Road, Kolkata-700 022 as tenants. It is a property of the eight respondent, M. B. Commercial Trust. There are eleven flats in the existing buildings and all are occupied by tenants. In May 1999 the tenants faced an acute shortage of water, and consequently, on the basis of their request, the trustees for the eighth respondent applied to the corporation for permission to sink a deep tube well in the premises. They were informed by the trustees that the corporation granted the requisite permission to sink a deep tube well. At the material point of time there were two sources of water supply to the premises, viz. the corporation pipeline, and the deep tube well. The pump installed for causing the underground reservoir corporation water to reach the overhead tank is under the control of the trustees. On February 16th, 2006 water supply to their flats was completely stopped. The trustees padlocked the doors of the room where the pump is installed. Their request to resume water supply failed to move the trustees. Under the circumstances, they informed the matter to the corporation by their letter dated March 8th, 2006. The respondents colluded and conspired together to stop water supply to them, and thus they infringed their fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On may 3rd, 2006 they moved the competent civil Court by instituting a suit seeking a decree for restoration of water supply. An application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was moved seeking a mandatory interim order directing restoration of water supply. The Court did not grant any ex parte interim order. The trustees filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, which was rejected by an order dated September 11th, 2006. Feeling aggrieved, they moved this Court by filing a revision application under Article 227, and obtained an order staying all further proceedings before the civil Court. As a result, they are unable to proceed with the suit as well. They called upon the third respondent, the authority concerned of the corporation, to take immediate steps for proper water supply to the premises. The authorities of the corporation failed and neglected to take necessary steps. Against such action and inaction of the corporation they took out the writ petition.

(3.) ON December 19th, 2006 an order was made appointing a special officer. The caretaker of the eighth respondent was directed to hand over the keys of the lock put on the doors of the room concerned to the special officer for inspection thereof. On December 20th, 2006 the report of the special officer was considered. An order was made directing the special officer to break open the padlock put on the doors of the room, to install a pump, if there was no pump, and to appoint a caretaker. By order dated december 21st, 2006 while giving further directions to the special officer, maintainability of the writ petition was kept open. Then order dated december 22nd, 2006 was made directing the special officer to install the pump. Under the circumstances, the trustees for the eighth respondent took out an application (G. A. No. 124 of 2007) dated January 17th, 2007 for an order dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable. They contended that with a pure private dispute between landlords and tenants the writ petition had been taken out, when remedy of the petitioners, as tenants, if any, was available only under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy act, 1997. The petitioners have filed opposition to the application. But the respondents in the writ petition have not filed any opposition to the writ petition. When the application was taken up for hearing, Counsel for the parties invited me to take up the writ petition itself for final hearing and disposal. Hence I took up the writ petition for final hearing.