School culvert blamed for restricting floodwater flow; Madras High Court urges stakeholders to coordinate on widening it to protect Thaiyur residents

The petitioner school challenged a communication dated 8 September 2026 from the Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department (WRD), concerning a culvert constructed by the school across the Thaiyur surplus course.

The WRD stated that the culvert was only 6 metres wide, compared with the channel’s stated width of 20 metres, and that its capacity obstructed the flow of floodwater; it requested the school to coordinate with other institutions and layout developers to mobilise funds for additional vents.

The school argued that other institutions and developers also used the culvert and should contribute to its reconstruction.

It sought to quash the communication and obtain directions to desilt the canal and remove garbage while retaining the existing bridge and culvert.

1. Whether the WRD’s communication requesting coordination and mobilisation of funds for widening the culvert was legally challengeable in a writ petition.

2. Whether public authorities could require the school and other stakeholders to cooperate in widening or reconstructing the culvert to protect the watercourse and reduce flooding risks.

The Court relied on the public-interest principle that private interests cannot prevail over the protection and maintenance of water bodies or measures needed to prevent flooding.

It referred to the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachments Act, 2007, as a statutory means available to the authorities if necessary to address obstruction of the watercourse.

The Court accepted the WRD’s account that the undersized culvert obstructed a surplus course carrying substantial floodwater and could contribute to flooding in the locality.

It treated the impugned communication as a request to coordinate with other stakeholders and mobilise funds—not as a decision that, by itself, gave the school a cause to institute writ proceedings.

Given the stated flood risk, the Court considered stakeholder coordination and provision for additional vents consistent with the public interest, while observing that the authorities remained responsible for protecting residents and property if cooperation failed.

It observed that the school, other institutions, layout developers and departmental authorities should coordinate to find a solution for constructing additional vents to match the channel width.

It further noted that the authorities could act under the 2007 Act if cooperation failed and flood-protection measures were not implemented.