Local authorities must ensure unobstructed drainage and prevent sewage, rainwater, and stagnant water on public streets.

The petitioners, users of a public street at Nerunjivilai, Sengalakurichi Village Panchayat, alleged that sewage, drainage and rainwater stagnated on the street, particularly during the monsoon, owing to obstruction of the natural drainage flow and alleged encroachments or blockages caused by the private respondents.

Representations were submitted to the official respondents, but the petitioners contended that no effective action was taken.

The State submitted that steps had already been initiated, while the petitioners maintained that the existing drainage arrangement was inadequate to prevent water stagnation.

A connected writ petition raised the related grievance of blockage of sewage drains from Malayadipudur Village through Sengalakurichi Village.

The two petitions were heard together because they concerned the same drainage-related dispute.

Whether the official respondents were required to inspect the public street and take effective measures to remove obstructions affecting the flow of sewage, drainage and rainwater.

Whether the respondents were required to remove any encroachment or obstruction caused by the private respondents in the public street or natural drainage course, in accordance with law.

Whether the respondents were required to assess and construct a suitable drainage facility to prevent water stagnation during the monsoon season.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a mandamus requiring public authorities to discharge their statutory and public duties concerning the maintenance of public streets, drainage and sanitation.

The governing principle was that local and district authorities must ensure the free and unobstructed flow of sewage, drainage and rainwater and must address lawful obstructions affecting public streets or natural drainage courses.

Any removal of alleged encroachments or obstructions must be undertaken in accordance with law.

The Court accepted that the grievance concerned a continuing public-infrastructure and sanitation problem rather than a dispute capable of resolution merely through the existing drainage provision.

Although the official respondents claimed that steps had been taken, the petitioners’ submission that the facility was inadequate during the monsoon warranted a factual inspection and administrative assessment.

Accordingly, the Court directed the authorities to inspect the street, determine the requirement for a proper drainage facility, and identify whether any obstruction had been caused by the private respondents.

If such obstruction existed, it was to be removed in accordance with law, followed by construction of a suitable drainage system ensuring the unobstructed flow of water.

The entire exercise was required to be completed within twelve weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.