ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.

1. In this pro bono publico, the petitioners have prayed for a mandamus, through a direction, forbearing the respondents, particularly, the Commissioner of Mayiladuthurai Municipality, third respondent herein, from constructing a sewerage pumping station in Uttankulam Irrigation Tank, Mayiladuthurai Town.

2. According to the petitioners, the irrigation tank at Uttankulam is being used as a reservoir for rain water and, as such, the said tank helps the people in many ways, apart from irrigation. The Mayiladuthurai Municipality, third respondent herein, has proposed to construct a septic tank/sewerage pumping station for underground drainage system in this irrigation tank. The petitioners, on coming to know of the same, sent a lawyer's notice, dated 16.11.2002, to the third respondent, asking them not to put up any septic tank in Uttankulam. Since there was no response, the petitioners had filed W.P. No. 46227 of 2002, as a public interest litigation, and a Division Bench of this Court, on 12.03.2003, gave a direction to the third respondent Municipality to consider their lawyer's notice, dated 16.11.2002, and pass orders on merits. That order was intimated to the third respondent Municipality by the petitioners in April, 2003. A reply from the third respondent Municipality was received, wherein it was stated that the third respondent had only proposed to construct a sewerage pumping station in the said tank and not septic tank. On noticing that the construction of sewerage pumping station has started even without the permission of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, the petitioners are constrained to file this Writ Petition, for a mandamus, forbearing the third respondent Municipality from constructing the sewerage pumping station.

3. According to the Commissioner of Mayiladuthurai Municipality, third respondent herein, the Supreme Court of India had directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests, to provide Underground Sewerage Scheme to Mayiladuthurai Municipality, in its order dated 28.07.1997. Accordingly, the Ministry of Environment and Forests approved the DPR of providing Underground Sewerage Scheme for Mayiladuthurai Municipality for Rs.42.00 crores. The Underground Sewerage Scheme in the municipal area has been divided into nine zones. In Zone No. V, the pumping station has been selected at Uttankulam, based on the topography, which is a disused kulam (tank). There is no storage of water even in the rainy season. It gets sullage and waste water from the nearby residential areas in all seasons. The inhabitants are not actually using the kulam. Since there is no water in the kulam, it becomes a dry land. In this scheme, there is no proposal for construction of septic tank in any part of the town and there is only a proposal for construction of sewerage pumping station. Out of 5737 sq.ft. available in the disused Uttankulam, only 2500 sq.ft. has been utilised for construction of pumping station. The pumping station will be constructed with water tight RCC structures and the collected sewerage will be pumped within 30 minutes to the Treatment Plant. There is no link between disused kulam and Cauvery and, therefore, the question of contamination and pollution does not arise. As per the order of High Court, dated 12.03.2003, the Commissioner of Mayiladuthurai Municipality, third respondent herein, considered the representation and sent a reply to the petitioners on 14.05.2003. Again, before the notice was published in the Notice Board, he invited objections in this regard and one of the notices was sent to the petitioners also. Ultimately, final orders were passed on 06.06.2003 that the proposal for construction of pumping station at Uttankulam was considered essential. That order was intimated to the petitioners. The object of the petitioners is to stop the construction process, when the huge amount of Rs.42.00 crores has been sanctioned under the Underground Sewerage Scheme and, hence, considering the public interest and to avoid loss of public money, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. During the pendency of Writ Petition, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board was impleaded as one of the parties and directed to file a counter. Accordingly, counter has been filed by the Board.

5. According to Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, third respondent filed an application for consent of the Board on 05.04.2004 to provide treatment system for Mayiladuthurai Municipality. The third respondent proposed to construct a Collection-cum-Pumping Station at Uttankulam, which is situated at Zone No. V, so as to collect and pump the sewerage under Zone No. V. After a careful examination of the application of the third respondent, dated 05.04.2004, the Board gave its consent for construction of Effluent Treatment Plant, by an order dated 19.07.2004, with a condition that the proposed Effluent Treatment Plant Project shall not create any adverse impact to any existing environmental condition.

6. On the above lines, respective counsel for the parties made their submissions before this Court.

7. We have carefully considered the said submissions and perused the records.

8. At the outset, it shall be stated that it is not correct on the part of the petitioners to state that Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board had not given any permission for construction of pumping station and for installation of Effluent Treatment Plant. Inasmuch as the order produced by the counsel for the Board, dated 19.07.2004, consent was given to the third respondent Municipality, for establishment of Effluent Treatment Plant, as prayed for by the Municipality. Admittedly, this order was passed under Section 25 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. There is no dispute, that order can be challenged by way of an appeal under Section 28 of the Act, if any person is aggrieved, before the appropriate authority.

9. Therefore, this Court is unable to give any mandamus to the authorities concerned and is constrained to dismiss this Writ Petition, directing the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy, as provided for under the Act.

10. Before parting with the case, we have to make a note of the agonizing feature. The petitioners, instead of making a representation, requesting the authorities not to construct any pumping station or instal sewerage plant, have chosen to issue a lawyer's notice to the authorities, with a threatening note, calling upon the authorities to stop the construction or else they will go to Court. However, a reply was sent by the third respondent Municipality to the petitioners, giving an opportunity of mentioning the details of the proposal. Thereafter, they came to High Court, which, in turn, directed the third respondent Municipality to consider their representation and pass orders. Accordingly, third respondent sent a reply and also gave an opportunity to the petitioners as well as the public to come and meet the Commissioner in his office, to raise the objections, if any. Instead of availing that opportunity, the petitioners again sent a lawyer's notice, calling upon the third respondent to send the technical report, that they obtained for the proposal of construction of pumping station. In addition, originally, nine petitioners filed the Writ Petition before the Division Bench earlier, but the present Writ Petition is filed only by three petitioners. The construction of pumping station is only in pursuance of the Supreme Court order, that too, after getting consent from Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

11. The correspondence would indicate that the petitioners, instead of showing interest by requesting the authorities to consider their valid objections by using the opportunity given by the third respondent, have resorted to send notices through their lawyer, giving directions after directions. This conduct of the petitioners towards the officials concerned is to be highly deprecated. However, as stated above, it is open for the petitioners to seek appropriate remedy before the appellate authority, challenging the orders passed by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, on 19.07.2004.

12. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected W.V.M.P. Nos. 2346 of 2003 and 52 of 2004 stand allowed and W.P.M.P. No. 37234 of 2003 stands dismissed.