VASANT KOLHATKAR vs COMMR., THANE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

THE present complaint is directed against the opposite party, the Thane Municipal Corporation. THE complainant has alleged in complaint that the opposite party, the Municipal Corporation, Thane is not taking effective steps to supervise the underground drainage system at Thane. also made grievance that the manhole of the underground drainage in front of the complainant''s house over-flows in the rainy season. A perusal of the complaint shows the general nature of complaints against the Municipal Corporation, Thane. THE complainant has alleged that the Municipal Corporation, Thane is not taking proper care of the underground drainage system as a result of which the people in general are put to great inconvenience and health hazards. THE complainant has claimed an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs as compensation for his mental torture, frustration and hardship.

AFTER the receipt of the complaint, we noticed the complainant and heard him on the point of maintainability of the complaint. According to Shri Kolhatkar, the complainant, he is entitled to the service of the Municipal Corporation as a citizen and since he alleged that there is deficiency in the service of the Municipal Corporation in relation to the underground system, he should be paid the compensation of Rs. 9 lakhs for his of his contention, Shri Kolhatkar placed reliance on the order of the National Commission, New Delhi dated 6.4.1990 in Original Petition No. 26/89, Consumer Education & Research Society v. Ahemdabad Municipal Corporation and Others. We have given our anxious consideration to the entire complaint of complainant and the order of the National Commission mentioned above. The aforesaid order of the National Commission was passed in a complaint where the entire grievances were relating to the public interest. On behalf of the Ahemdabad Municipal Corporation, the assurance was given by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the Corporation that the grievances in the petition would be removed. The petition was disposed off by recording the assurance of the Advocate General. However, we find the Commission did not express any opinion on the sustainability or otherwise of the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party in that petition. We find that in the case of National Commission, the complainant was Consumer Education & Research Society but in the instant case, the complainant is an individual. We are doubtful whether in such a situation, an individual can file a complaint as regards the public interest litigation. Undoubtedly, any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or under any other Law for the time being in force can be a complainant for such grievances. Under these circumstances, we feel that the complaint is misconceived and thus not maintainable.

In view of the nature of the complaint being in the public interest, the individual person is not competent to agitate against the Municipal Corporation. If such an attempt is encouraged by this Commission, there will be a flood of complaints which is likely to put unnecessary strain on the working of this Commission, having limited funds and staff. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to admit this complaint and hence it be returned to the complainant. However, the complainant is free to agitate his grievance at the appropriate level if so advised. Complaint dismissed.