Directing restoration of a public well which had been encroached and closed and on which a multistoryed complex was built at nearby Puzhal village, the Madras High Court called for action against officials who did not act despite the issue being brought to their notice.
"The undisputed position is that there is an unauthorized construction and covering of a well. CMDA (Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority) and Chennai Corporation seek to put the burden on each other...We direct that necessary action be taken within a maximum period of four weeks and after notice all concerned, the public well be restored," the first bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M. Sathyanarayanan, said
"We further direct that responsibility be fixed on the officer under whose eyes this construction was carried out and a report be filed with regard to the disciplinary action (against the official)," the bench said.
The matter relates to a PIL by a service organization, saying a community well and an open canal at Puzhal had vanished and a multistoreyed commercial complex had come up in the area.
The PIL by M Devidiran, President of a service organisation 'Vaname Ellai Podhu Nala Sangam' submitted that in May 2011 he sought details under RTI from the executive officer of Puzhal panchayat on the number of open wells in the village and steps taken to protect them.
In his reply, the official said there are 14 wells, including the one in question. When members of the service organization went around looking for it, they were shocked to find a multistoreyed commercial complex at the spot.
Though they sent representations to the authorities, requesting them to restore the public facility, there was no response and hence the present PIL was filed, he said.
The PIL said the building had been constructed by covering the well and without proper approval. It also sought to restrain its promoter from selling the commercial units to other parties. Though officials were put on notice, they did nothing to stop construction, it alleged.
The first bench listed the matter to December 23 for compliance of its order.
