The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that municipal authorities cannot abdicate their statutory duty to provide sanctioned water connections merely due to third-party obstruction. The judgment underscores that compliance with formalities by the applicant shifts the burden on the municipality to execute the sanctioned service, even if it requires police assistance to overcome unlawful resistance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sk. Abdul Rahim, applied for a new domestic water connection from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC). The KMC sanctioned the connection on 7 June 2022, and the petitioner deposited the requisite fees. However, private respondents - identified as a tenant and a neighbour - allegedly obstructed the municipality from laying the water supply line to the petitioner’s premises. The petitioner contended that the KMC possessed the authority to resist such obstruction but failed to act.
Procedural History
The petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the KMC to provide the sanctioned water connection. Key procedural steps included:
- 7 June 2022: KMC sanctioned the water connection.
- 2026: Writ petition filed after prolonged inaction by the KMC.
- Private respondents (Nos. 4 and 5): Despite service, they did not appear before the Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for:
- A direction to the KMC to provide the sanctioned water connection.
- An order for police assistance if required to overcome obstruction.
- A time-bound execution of the connection.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a municipal authority can refuse to provide a sanctioned water connection on the ground of third-party obstruction, particularly when the applicant has complied with all statutory formalities and deposited the requisite fees.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that:
- The KMC had sanctioned the connection and acknowledged the petitioner’s compliance with all formalities, including fee payment.
- The obstruction by private parties was unlawful and could not justify the KMC’s inaction.
- The municipality possessed statutory authority to resist such obstruction and was duty-bound to provide the connection.
For the Respondent (KMC)
The KMC’s counsel submitted that:
- The municipality had taken all necessary steps to sanction the connection.
- The obstruction by private parties was beyond its control, though it acknowledged its duty to provide the service.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory obligations of municipal authorities under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and the principles of natural justice. It observed:
-
Compliance with Formalities: The petitioner had fulfilled all requirements, including fee payment, which shifted the burden to the KMC to provide the connection.
-
Third-Party Obstruction: The Court held that unlawful obstruction by private parties could not absolve the municipality of its duty. It noted that the KMC had the authority to seek police assistance to overcome such resistance, as explicitly provided in the judgment.
-
Statutory Duty: The Court emphasized that municipal authorities cannot abdicate their statutory obligations merely due to practical difficulties. It relied on the principle that public authorities must act in furtherance of public interest, even if it requires coercive measures against obstructing parties.
"The municipality is not powerless and is competent enough to resist such illegal obstruction. It is expected that the municipality shall complete the work of providing the new domestic water connection to the petitioner’s premises within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order."
The Court also directed that if the KMC required police assistance, the local police station must provide the necessary support, reinforcing the state’s duty to ensure the execution of lawful orders.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The KMC must provide the sanctioned water connection to the petitioner’s premises within 8 weeks.
- The KMC may seek police assistance if required to overcome obstruction.
- The local police must afford necessary assistance upon the KMC’s request.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Municipal Authorities Cannot Cite Obstruction as an Excuse
This judgment establishes that municipal authorities cannot evade their statutory duties by citing third-party obstruction. Practitioners should note:
- Compliance with formalities by the applicant shifts the burden to the municipality to execute the sanctioned service.
- Police assistance can be sought to overcome unlawful resistance, and authorities are obligated to provide such support.
Time-Bound Execution of Public Services
- Courts may impose strict timelines for the execution of municipal services, particularly when delays prejudice the applicant.
- Mandamus petitions remain an effective remedy for enforcing statutory obligations of public authorities.
Legal Remedies Against Obstructing Parties
- Applicants facing obstruction can seek directions against both the municipality and the obstructing parties in a single writ petition.
- Contempt proceedings may lie against private parties who obstruct the execution of court orders.
Practitioners should advise clients to:
- Document compliance with all statutory formalities, including fee payments.
- Approach the High Court under Article 226 if municipal authorities delay or refuse to act despite compliance.
- Request police assistance in the writ petition itself, as the Court may direct such support proactively.
