Zafrul Hasan and ors. Vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderkalyan jyoti sengupta, j.1. the first petitioner is one of the joint receivers, appointed in partition suit no. 507 of 1945 the second petitioner is one of the co-owners, while the third and fourth petitioners are tenants of the building and premises being numbered 1, dr. ishaque road kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). this premises is commonly known as 'palace court' and is having two separate blocks containing numerous suite and flats. this building was constructed in or about 1926 with effective sewage connection. it is claimed that this building had four several connections with the municipal sewage line.2. on 22nd april 2003, the inhabitants of the said premises could find that the filth water is accumulating and reasons therefor could be detected that the existing four numbers of drainage and sewage lines were disconnected by the kolkata municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the said corporation) to facilitate works of laying drainage and sewage line underneath kyd street abutting the said premises to connect with the drainage and sewage line underneath chowrangee road. despite repeated representations no enquiry has been made, nothing was done by the officials of the said corporation for restoration of drainage connection, no notice was served and no hearing was given before disconnecting such sewage lines.3. on the aforesaid background this writ petition was moved on or about 21st may 2002. on that date justice bhaskar bhattacharya was pleased to pass an interim order directing the said corporation authorities to give connection of drainage with one pit immediately, subject to final decision of the writ application and direction for filing affidavit was given.4. on 9th september 2002 justice bhattacharya was pleased to find that the drainage system of the said premises in question was defective and it was further observed that it was the duty of the commissioner under section 294 of the calcutta municipal corporation act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the aforesaid act) to suggest proposed drainage system to the owner of the said premises. accordingly, his lordship was pleased to give direction upon the commissioner or any other appropriate officials, who might be deputed by the commissioner to give such suggested drainage plan, which will be effectual and without any fault.5. the affidavits were filed for hearing. the matter came up for hearing before hon'ble mr. justice p.c. ghose on 11th february 2002. after hearing considerably his lordship was pleased to direct the corporation to serve copy of the proposed sewage and drainage of the said premises upon the learned advocate for the petitioner. the alternative drainage network of the premises was shown in the plans through one sewage connection.6. on such plan being submitted by the corporation authorities pursuant to the order of this court, the writ petitioners bona fide doubted ineffectual workability of proposed drainage system through one outlet falling to the municipal sewage line. it was contended at that point of time by filing a supplementary affidavit that technically the proposed system was not feasible to achieve the purpose.7. on 18th june 2003 after hearing the learned lawyers and considering the allegations made in the supplementary affidavit i passed an order appointing an independent engineer mr. manoj kumar mazumdar, retired chief engineer of the said corporation for ascertaining whether the scheme suggested by the engineer of the respondent no, 1 was feasible as to its workability, meaning thereby whether by this system the entire drainage system of the building can be ensured effectively. it is to be recorded that in terms of the interim order of justice bhattacharya attempt to restore effectual drainage system of the said premises with one line proves to be total failure. thereafter the said engineer submitted a report on 1st july 2003 in terms of the aforesaid order. in his report he observed that main feature of the scheme suggested by respondent no. 1 was to connect west side drain of west block to the east side drain. this is not feasible as its slope will be in reverse direction and the length of pipeline will increase. he also observed that to accept the suggestion of the respondent no. 1 replacement of existing pipe by higher diameter pipe was required. he observed further that it was not possible in an existing system keeping the existing toilet in functioning condition and dismantling few spiralling stairs which are in existence in the narrow space at the west side of the west block. the special officer also gives alternative plan, keeping in view the alleged norms of one connection for one premises.8. alternative plan, given by the said engineer also was not acceptable to the petitioners in view of the fact that this will involve enormous expenditure and that apart this will affect and/or damage load bearing wall of the old building. therefore, i directed the said engineer to sit again and to reconsider as to whether any other method is possible or not. accordingly he submitted a second report on 18th august 2003 after considering all aspects the special officer reported in substance that no new system will work effectively and only an old connection can serve effectively.9. mr. bhaskar sen learned senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition contends that, this building was constructed under the old building rules, for about eight decades this premises had been connected with the main sewage line by four several outlets. there was no difficulty until time mentioned above in the petition, the provision of the present act has no application.10. he submits even if the present act applies, then without any notice or hearing all of a sudden all the four connections with the municipal sewage line were disconnected. he submits that it is true the municipal commissioner has power to close or limit a sewage connection in certain cases. but this can be done only upon the opinion being formed by him and upon service of prior notice upon the owner of the premises in question. he further contends that however, this sewage connection cannot be closed nor discontinued under the provision of section 297 of the aforesaid act without all the conditions are satisfied. another drain equally effectual, of the premises must be connected with the municipal drain. he further contends that even alternative drainage system of any premises shall be altered and /or done at the costs of the corporation. he has also drawn my attention to the provision of section 284 of the aforesaid act and submits that if anything done by the municipal commissioner by way of altering or discontinuing any drain and thereby owner of a house is deprived of the lawful use of any drain, then municipal commissioner is duty bound as soon as possible to provide for use of some other drain as effectual as the one which has been discontinued, closed up or destroyed or the use of which has been prohibited.11. he contends that it is wrongful action of the municipal authority under the misconceived interpretation of the existing law, that one drain is for one house and premises, he submits it is not mere numerical existence of the drain but effectual drainage and sewage system. the topography, area and number of dwelling units of this building and premises are such that the outlet of the drainage and sewage of this premises could not be done effectively by one line. as such when the building was constructed four connections were sanctioned. therefore, without examining effectual workability by one drainage system the municipal authority without notice or without reason whatsoever has discontinued and/or closed the drainage line in totality of the aforesaid premises. even after giving one connection in terms of the interim order of this court it is found that the drainage system of the building is totally ineffectual following the norms of one connection for one premises. as such considering the report filed by the special officer and furthermore when the municipal authority cannot definitely vouchsafe that the proposed scheme will be as effectual as before therefore, he submits that all the four old connections shall be restored at the costs of the municipal authority.12. mr. aloke ghosh learned counsel for the respondents contends that it was found while laying the new sewage connection along kid street leading to chowringhee road for providing effective drainage system to the mla hostel the owner of this building has illegally got four connections which is in total breach of the present norms, one connection for one building.13. he has drawn my attention to sections 289, 290 and 292, of the aforesaid act and submits that upon proper reading of all the aforesaid sections it will appear that there shall be one drain for sewage foul and polluted water and for sewage of the house and building there cannot be more than one connection. it is surprising how the owner of this building could get four sewage connections directly and as such on detection of such irregular and illegal connection the drainage department has decided to provide for one sewage connection to drain out foul and filth water discharged from toilets, urinals through drain pipe for effectual outlet. he contends further that the petitioners are bound to accept the recommendation and suggestion made by the special officer appointed by this court at their instance.14. he contends that new sewage connection has been made ready and in fact some of the occupants of this building have asked in writing to connect this building with the new single sewage connection.15. mr. ghosh's further submission is that this petition is not maintainable for affectation and grievances are of all the inmates of the building, whereas a few has filed this petition not as representative but as individuals.16. having heard respective contention of the learned counsels and having considered the materials placed before me including the reports of the special officer as well as the scheme submitted by the municipal engineer, i find admitted position is that the petitioners are co-owners and tenants and occupants. the question of maintainability on the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties has arisen. i think this point is absolutely frivolous, as the first petitioner has filed this application qua receiver appointed by this court, therefore, he is the de jure owner being the representative of the court. as such the petition can be maintained perfectly by the first petitioner alone. it is the duty of the receiver under the law amongst other to protect and preserve the property and further to look after the proper maintenance thereof. this petition in my view is filed aiming at to discharge his duty as a court officer. it is admitted position further that the building was constructed under the then municipal act and rules. it is not disputed that this building was having four direct connections with the municipal sewage line run underneath kid street and this was effectual outlet of drainage system, which could be maintained until the same was closed. i find this drainage connection was closed and/or discontinued by the commissioner without any notice or without providing for any alternative drainage and sewage outlet as effectual as before. even until the writ petition is made this house was deprived of sewage connection altogether for no fault of them at all. justification put forward by the said corporation is that the municipal commissioner has authority to improve corporation drain and indeed it was being done for effectual sewage and drainage system of the locality. but question is whether it has been done in accordance with the provisions of the relevant sections. i am in agreement with the submission of mr. sen that disconnection has not been done in accordance with the provision of sections 284 and 297 of the said act. therefore, the said sections are set out one after another.'284. alteration and discontinuance of drains.--the municipal commissioner may enlarge, alter the course of, lessen, arch over or otherwise improve any municipal drain and may discontinue, close up or destroy and such drain which has, in his opinion, become useless or unnecessary or prohibit the use of any such drain either entirely or for the purpose of foul water drainage or for purpose of surface drainage:provided that if, by reason of anything done under this section, any person is deprived of the lawful use of any drain, the municipal commissioner shall, as soon as may be, provide for his use some other drain as effectual as the one which has been discontinued, closed up or destroyed or the use of which has been prohibited.''297. power of municipal commissioner to close or limit the use of house drain in certain cases. - where a house drain connecting any premises with a municipal drain is sufficient for the effectual drainage of such premises and is otherwise unobjectionable but is not, in the opinion of the municipal commissioner, adopted to the general system of drainage in calcutta, he may, by written notice addressed to the owner of the premises, direct-a) that such house-drain be closed, discontinued or destroyed and that any work necessary for that purpose be done; or(b) that such use-drain shall, from such date as may be specified in the notice in this behalf, be used for sewage, offensive matter and polluted water only or for rain water and unpolluted sub-soil water only :provided that -(i) no house drain may be closed, discontinued or destroyed under clause (a) except on condition of his providing another drain equally effectual for the drainage of the premises and communicating with any municipal drain which he thinks fit; and(ii) the expenses of the construction of any drain so provided by the corporation and of any work done under clause (a) may be paid to of the municipal fund'.17. it will appear from the proviso of the aforesaid two sections the closure, discontinuation and destruction of any drainage system of any building can be done upon service of written notice addressing to the owner of the said premises and further providing another equally effectual system of the drainage of the premises and communicating with municipal drain effectually, which he thinks fit and further that such alternative arrangement shall be done at the costs of the municipal fund. i find further that no prior notice was served nor any alternative arrangement was mad either before or after closure, disconnection or destruction of the sewerage connection of the premises.18. i am of the view even assuming the petitioners were having four connections legally, but then these connections could not have been disconnected without notice or without making arrangement for effective drainage and sewage outlet of his premises.19. at the ad interim stage this court prima facie thought that one sewage connection would be as effectual as before, so, with this idea this court directed the municipal authority to frame a scheme. the municipal authority following so-called one drain for one premises norm submitted scheme. this norm itself was seriously challenged by the petitioners. it is found in the report of the expert engineer who was the erstwhile chief engineer of the same department of respondent no. 1, that this scheme is not feasible nor effectual in as much as if it is implemented then outlet system is to be directed against the normal slope as constructed originally of the said building to divert outlet system in a reverse direction pursuant to this scheme which is not at all feasible nor workable. even the municipal engineer in the sitting held by the special officer appointed by this court could not explain about its workability. the special officer appointed by this court could not find any effectual method or scheme following norms of one drain for one premises.20. mr. aloke ghosh vehemently contends that under no circumstances one drain for one premises can be deviated. i have read the sections on which he has relied on. i find that there is an institution of the idea as suggested by mr. ghosh but then i think the object of providing for one drain for one premises is the minimum standard and with object of factual outlet of sewage and drainage from a house to the sewage line of the corporation necessarily, therefore it follows that it is not the number of drainage connection, but effectual outlet that really matters. in my view if it is found that one connection having regard to the typography and slope of a particular area where the building locates, does not serve as effectual outlet of sewage and drainage of a house then there is no embargo nor any prohibition in the act or the rules framed thereunder to give and maintain more than one connection.21. in any event this building was constructed before present 1980 act came into force and it was constructed in the year 1926- so the drainage connection, may be four in numbers was given in compliance with the provisions of the act and the rules their in operation. with this provision of the new act the petitioners' right of maintaining four separate drainage connections cannot be taken away and or effected, notwithstanding repealing of all the previous acts by virtue of section 635.22. from the report of the special officer i find no other alterative method can ensure effectual sewage and drainage system of the building. the municipal authority has not been able to come forward with any other scheme or plan which will be an effectual one. the topography of site of the building is having slope east to west and then south to north. both the blocks of this premises are provided with toilets, bathrooms and kitchen on their eastern and western side respectively. therefore, by any stretch of imagination effectual drainage and /or sewage arrangement cannot be maintained with one connection.23. the contention of mr. aloke ghosh that one connection for one house is not acceptable in this case. such an interpretation of the law will be totally absurd particularly in a given case where one connection may not be effective method of discharge and outlet of storm water and sewage of the building. it is the duty of the corporation authority under section 277 of the said act amongst others to maintain sewage for effectual drainage and proper discharge of storm water and sewage of kolkata in such a manner that shall not cause nuisance. the situation of the building has become such a perpetual source of nuisance that without any effectual drainage system it may deemed to be without drainage system under section 291 of the said act.24. since the corporation authority in purported exercise of power under section 297 has closed or discontinued the connection of the house drain of the said premises with the sewage line without serving any notice and without providing with another drain equally effectual, the old and existing four connections of this house shall be restored.25. accordingly, i direct the respondents to restore all the four old and existing connections as early as possible and within 7 days from the date of communication of this order at the cost of the respondent. thus the application is allowed together with costs assessed at 600 g. ms. inclusive remuneration of the special officers appointed by this court.

Judgment:
ORDER

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.

1. The first petitioner is one of the joint Receivers, appointed in Partition Suit No. 507 of 1945 the second petitioner is one of the co-owners, while the third and fourth petitioners are tenants of the building and premises being numbered 1, Dr. Ishaque Road Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). This premises is commonly known as 'Palace Court' and is having two separate blocks containing numerous suite and flats. This building was constructed in or about 1926 with effective sewage connection. It is claimed that this building had four several connections with the municipal sewage line.

2. On 22nd April 2003, the inhabitants of the said premises could find that the filth water is accumulating and reasons therefor could be detected that the existing four numbers of drainage and sewage lines were disconnected by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the said Corporation) to facilitate works of laying drainage and sewage line underneath Kyd Street abutting the said premises to connect with the drainage and sewage line underneath Chowrangee Road. Despite repeated representations no enquiry has been made, nothing was done by the officials of the said Corporation for restoration of drainage connection, no notice was served and no hearing was given before disconnecting such sewage lines.

3. On the aforesaid background this writ petition was moved on or about 21st May 2002. On that date Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya was pleased to pass an interim order directing the said Corporation authorities to give connection of drainage with one pit immediately, subject to final decision of the writ application and direction for filing affidavit was given.

4. On 9th September 2002 Justice Bhattacharya was pleased to find that the drainage system of the said premises in question was defective and it was further observed that it was the duty of the Commissioner under Section 294 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the aforesaid Act) to suggest proposed drainage system to the owner of the said premises. Accordingly, His Lordship was pleased to give direction upon the Commissioner or any other appropriate officials, who might be deputed by the commissioner to give such suggested drainage plan, which will be effectual and without any fault.

5. The affidavits were filed for hearing. The matter came up for hearing before Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.C. Ghose on 11th February 2002. After hearing considerably His Lordship was pleased to direct the Corporation to serve copy of the proposed sewage and drainage of the said premises upon the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The alternative drainage network of the premises was shown in the plans through one sewage connection.

6. On such plan being submitted by the Corporation authorities pursuant to the order of this Court, the writ petitioners bona fide doubted ineffectual workability of proposed drainage system through one outlet falling to the Municipal sewage line. It was contended at that point of time by filing a supplementary affidavit that technically the proposed system was not feasible to achieve the purpose.

7. On 18th June 2003 after hearing the learned Lawyers and considering the allegations made in the supplementary affidavit I passed an order appointing an independent Engineer Mr. Manoj Kumar Mazumdar, retired Chief Engineer of the said Corporation for ascertaining whether the scheme suggested by the Engineer of the respondent No, 1 was feasible as to its workability, meaning thereby whether by this system the entire drainage system of the building can be ensured effectively. It is to be recorded that in terms of the interim order of Justice Bhattacharya attempt to restore effectual drainage system of the said premises with one line proves to be total failure. Thereafter the said Engineer submitted a report on 1st July 2003 in terms of the aforesaid order. In his report he observed that main feature of the scheme suggested by respondent No. 1 was to connect west side drain of west block to the east side drain. This is not feasible as its slope will be in reverse direction and the length of pipeline will increase. He also observed that to accept the suggestion of the respondent No. 1 replacement of existing pipe by higher diameter pipe was required. He observed further that it was not possible in an existing system keeping the existing toilet in functioning condition and dismantling few spiralling stairs which are in existence in the narrow space at the west side of the west block. The Special Officer also gives alternative plan, keeping in view the alleged norms of one connection for one premises.

8. Alternative plan, given by the said Engineer also was not acceptable to the petitioners in view of the fact that this will involve enormous expenditure and that apart this will affect and/or damage load bearing wall of the old building. Therefore, I directed the said Engineer to sit again and to reconsider as to whether any other method is possible or not. Accordingly he submitted a second report on 18th August 2003 after considering all aspects the Special Officer reported in substance that no new system will work effectively and only an old connection can serve effectively.

9. Mr. Bhaskar Sen learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition contends that, this building was constructed under the old building rules, For about eight decades this premises had been connected with the main sewage line by four several outlets. There was no difficulty until time mentioned above in the petition, The provision of the present Act has no application.

10. He submits even if the present Act applies, then without any notice or hearing all of a sudden all the four connections with the Municipal sewage line were disconnected. He submits that it is true the Municipal Commissioner has power to close or limit a sewage connection in certain cases. But this can be done only upon the opinion being formed by him and upon service of prior notice upon the owner of the premises in question. He further contends that however, this sewage connection cannot be closed nor discontinued under the provision of Section 297 of the aforesaid Act without all the conditions are satisfied. Another drain equally effectual, of the premises must be connected with the municipal drain. He further contends that even alternative drainage system of any premises shall be altered and /or done at the costs of the Corporation. He has also drawn my attention to the provision of Section 284 of the aforesaid Act and submits that if anything done by the Municipal Commissioner by way of altering or discontinuing any drain and thereby owner of a house is deprived of the lawful use of any drain, then Municipal Commissioner is duty bound as soon as possible to provide for use of some other drain as effectual as the one which has been discontinued, closed up or destroyed or the use of which has been prohibited.

11. He contends that it is wrongful action of the Municipal authority under the misconceived interpretation of the existing law, that one drain is for one house and premises, he submits it is not mere numerical existence of the drain but effectual drainage and sewage system. The topography, area and number of dwelling units of this building and premises are such that the outlet of the drainage and sewage of this premises could not be done effectively by one line. As such when the building was constructed four connections were sanctioned. Therefore, without examining effectual workability by one drainage system the Municipal authority without notice or without reason whatsoever has discontinued and/or closed the drainage line in totality of the aforesaid premises. Even after giving one connection in terms of the interim order of this Court it is found that the drainage system of the building is totally ineffectual following the norms of one connection for one premises. As such considering the report filed by the Special Officer and furthermore when the Municipal authority cannot definitely vouchsafe that the proposed scheme will be as effectual as before therefore, he submits that all the four old connections shall be restored at the costs of the Municipal authority.

12. Mr. Aloke Ghosh learned Counsel for the respondents contends that it was found while laying the new sewage connection along Kid Street leading to Chowringhee Road for providing effective drainage system to the MLA Hostel the owner of this building has illegally got four connections which is in total breach of the present norms, one connection for one building.

13. He has drawn my attention to Sections 289, 290 and 292, of the aforesaid Act and submits that upon proper reading of all the aforesaid Sections it will appear that there shall be one drain for sewage foul and polluted water and for sewage of the house and building there cannot be more than one connection. It is surprising how the owner of this building could get four sewage connections directly and as such on detection of such irregular and illegal connection the drainage department has decided to provide for one sewage connection to drain out foul and filth water discharged from toilets, urinals through drain pipe for effectual outlet. He contends further that the petitioners are bound to accept the recommendation and suggestion made by the Special Officer appointed by this Court at their instance.

14. He contends that new sewage connection has been made ready and in fact some of the occupants of this building have asked in writing to connect this building with the new single sewage connection.

15. Mr. Ghosh's further submission is that this petition is not maintainable for affectation and grievances are of all the inmates of the building, whereas a few has filed this petition not as representative but as individuals.

16. Having heard respective contention of the learned Counsels and having considered the materials placed before me including the reports of the Special Officer as well as the scheme submitted by the Municipal Engineer, I find admitted position is that the petitioners are co-owners and tenants and occupants. The question of maintainability on the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties has arisen. I think this point is absolutely frivolous, as the first petitioner has filed this application qua Receiver appointed by this Court, Therefore, he is the de jure owner being the representative of the Court. As such the petition can be maintained perfectly by the first petitioner alone. It is the duty of the Receiver under the law amongst other to protect and preserve the property and further to look after the proper maintenance thereof. This petition in my view is filed aiming at to discharge his duty as a Court Officer. It is admitted position further that the building was constructed under the then Municipal Act and Rules. It is not disputed that this building was having four direct connections with the Municipal sewage line run underneath Kid Street and this was effectual outlet of drainage system, which could be maintained until the same was closed. I find this drainage connection was closed and/or discontinued by the Commissioner without any notice or without providing for any alternative drainage and sewage outlet as effectual as before. Even until the writ petition is made this house was deprived of sewage connection altogether for no fault of them at all. Justification put forward by the said Corporation is that the Municipal Commissioner has authority to improve Corporation drain and indeed it was being done for effectual sewage and drainage system of the locality. But question is whether it has been done in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Sections. I am in agreement with the submission of Mr. Sen that disconnection has not been done in accordance with the provision of Sections 284 and 297 of the said Act. Therefore, the said Sections are set out one after another.

'284. Alteration and discontinuance of drains.--The Municipal Commissioner may enlarge, alter the course of, lessen, arch over or otherwise improve any municipal drain and may discontinue, close up or destroy and such drain which has, in his opinion, become useless or unnecessary or prohibit the use of any such drain either entirely or for the purpose of foul water drainage or for purpose of surface drainage:

Provided that if, by reason of anything done under this section, any person is deprived of the lawful use of any drain, the Municipal Commissioner shall, as soon as may be, provide for his use some other drain as effectual as the one which has been discontinued, closed up or destroyed or the use of which has been prohibited.'

'297. Power of Municipal Commissioner to close or limit the use of house drain in certain cases. - Where a house drain connecting any premises with a municipal drain is sufficient for the effectual drainage of such premises and is otherwise unobjectionable but is not, in the opinion of the Municipal Commissioner, adopted to the general system of drainage in Calcutta, he may, by written notice addressed to the owner of the premises, direct-

a) That such house-drain be closed, discontinued or destroyed and that any work necessary for that purpose be done; or

(b) That such use-drain shall, from such date as may be specified in the notice in this behalf, be used for sewage, offensive matter and polluted water only or for rain water and unpolluted sub-soil water only :

Provided that -

(i) No house drain may be closed, discontinued or destroyed under Clause (a) except on condition of his providing another drain equally effectual for the drainage of the premises and communicating with any municipal drain which he thinks fit; and

(ii) the expenses of the construction of any drain so provided by the Corporation and of any work done under Clause (a) may be paid to of the Municipal Fund'.

17. It will appear from the proviso of the aforesaid two Sections the closure, discontinuation and destruction of any drainage system of any building can be done upon service of written notice addressing to the owner of the said premises and further providing another equally effectual system of the drainage of the premises and communicating with Municipal drain effectually, which he thinks fit and further that such alternative arrangement shall be done at the costs of the Municipal fund. I find further that no prior notice was served nor any alternative arrangement was mad either before or after closure, disconnection or destruction of the sewerage connection of the premises.

18. I am of the view even assuming the petitioners were having four connections legally, but then these connections could not have been disconnected without notice or without making arrangement for effective drainage and sewage outlet of his premises.

19. At the ad interim stage this Court prima facie thought that one sewage connection would be as effectual as before, so, with this idea this Court directed the Municipal authority to frame a scheme. The Municipal authority following so-called one drain for one premises norm submitted scheme. This norm itself was seriously challenged by the petitioners. It is found in the report of the expert engineer who was the erstwhile Chief Engineer of the same Department of respondent No. 1, that this scheme is not feasible nor effectual in as much as if it is implemented then outlet system is to be directed against the normal slope as constructed originally of the said building to divert outlet system in a reverse direction pursuant to this scheme which is not at all feasible nor workable. Even the Municipal Engineer in the sitting held by the Special Officer appointed by this Court could not explain about its workability. The special officer appointed by this Court could not find any effectual method or scheme following norms of one drain for one premises.

20. Mr. Aloke Ghosh vehemently contends that under no circumstances one drain for one premises can be deviated. I have read the Sections on which he has relied on. I find that there is an institution of the idea as suggested by Mr. Ghosh but then I think the object of providing for one drain for one premises is the minimum standard and with object of factual outlet of sewage and drainage from a house to the sewage line of the Corporation necessarily, therefore it follows that it is not the number of drainage connection, but effectual outlet that really matters. In my view if it is found that one connection having regard to the typography and slope of a particular area where the building locates, does not serve as effectual outlet of sewage and drainage of a house then there is no embargo nor any prohibition in the Act or the Rules framed thereunder to give and maintain more than one connection.

21. In any event this building was constructed before present 1980 Act came into force and it was constructed in the year 1926- So the drainage connection, may be four in numbers was given in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules their in operation. With this provision Of the new Act the petitioners' right of maintaining four separate drainage connections cannot be taken away and or effected, notwithstanding repealing of all the previous Acts by virtue of Section 635.

22. From the report of the Special Officer I find no other alterative method can ensure effectual sewage and drainage system of the building. The Municipal authority has not been able to come forward with any other scheme or plan which will be an effectual one. The topography of site of the building is having slope east to west and then south to north. Both the blocks of this premises are provided with toilets, bathrooms and kitchen on their eastern and western side respectively. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination effectual drainage and /or sewage arrangement cannot be maintained with one connection.

23. The contention of Mr. Aloke Ghosh that one connection for one house is not acceptable in this case. Such an interpretation of the law will be totally absurd particularly in a given case where one connection may not be effective method of discharge and outlet of storm water and sewage of the building. It is the duty of the Corporation authority under Section 277 of the said Act amongst others to maintain sewage for effectual drainage and proper discharge of storm water and sewage of Kolkata in such a manner that shall not cause nuisance. The situation of the building has become such a perpetual source of nuisance that without any effectual drainage system it may deemed to be without drainage system under Section 291 of the said Act.

24. Since the Corporation authority in purported exercise of power under Section 297 has closed or discontinued the connection of the house drain of the said premises with the sewage line without serving any notice and without providing with another drain equally effectual, the old and existing four connections of this house shall be restored.

25. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to restore all the four old and existing connections as early as possible and within 7 days from the date of communication of this order at the cost of the respondent. Thus the application is allowed together with costs assessed at 600 G. Ms. inclusive remuneration of the Special Officers appointed by this Court.