This is a complaint made by one Shri Kshudiram Mondal, son of Late Brindaban Mondal, 124/1, Briji Road, Purbapara, P.o.-Garia, P.S.-Patuli, Kolkata-700 084 against (1) the Kolkata Municipal Corporation,5, S. N. Banerjee Road, P.S.- New Market, Kolkata-700 013, OP No.1, (2) The Commissioner, The Kolkata Municipal Corporation, 5, S. N. Banerjee Road, P.S.- New Market, Kolkata-700 013, OP No.2 and (3) The Executive Engineer, Building Department, K.M.C., Borough-XI, Baghajatin Station Road, Market Complex, Unit-I, P.S.-Patuli, Kolkata-700 092, OP No.3 praying for order directing the OP to render to the Complainant the facility of Road from the premises No.124/1, Briji Road under KMC ward No.110, under P.S.-Patuli to the nearest KMC Road, facility of sewerage and drainage from the said premises connecting the nearest KMC main sewerage underground drain and other allied facilities by the OP to be provided by way of development of the area, an order directing the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental anxiety suffered for approaching the authority of  KMC.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant is the owner of the land and building at remises No.124/1, Briji Road, Kolkata-700 084 under KMC Ward No.110. Complainant constructed building on the said premises as per plan sanctioned by the KMC authority and also paid requisite development charges, regarding road, drain adjacent to the said premises.

            There is a common passage which runs from north to south on the adjacent western side of the land at the said premises No.124/1, Briji Road and this is the only ingress and egress passage from the building. The land of the said premises and the adjacent area having underdeveloped area and the said passage connecting the said premises, there is no drain and no sewerage facility though the KMC accepts tax and charges. Despite payment of requisite fee these facilities are not available in the area. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 to 3 filed written version and denied all the allegations of the Complainant. Further, OP No.1 to 3 has stated that KMC is a statutory body under KMC and OP No.2 to 3 are working under OP No.1 and OPs are working for public interest at large. The development charges which has been paid by the Complainant is a statutory levy or fees for meeting expenditure of administration and enforcement of the regulatory machinery set up under statutory provisions. OPs are statutory body performing statutory duties and Complainant cannot be a consumer of KMC. So, OPs prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

Decision with reasons

        Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief where he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint. Against this OP has filed questionnaire to which Complainant has replied. Similarly, OP has filed evidence against which Complainant has put questions and OP filed affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint petition.

           On perusal of the allegations made out in the complaint it is clear that Complainant has filed this case for sewerage services and for development of the area, where he has constructed his house. In this regard, Complainant has filed a receipt by which he paid tax to the KMC and drew the attention of this Forum towards the charges which have been taken by the OP. No doubt these charges include development charge and other charges. But, these charges never reflect that an individual is entitled to all the reliefs which have been stated in the complaint petition, by the KMC. KMC being a statutory body is to provide services which are general in nature and which are not meant for the benefit of one single individual. It cannot be denied that the development  of the area affects other residents also, if the allegations of the Complainant is considered as true. But, they do not come forward with such a complaint. In this regard, it is clear that if a person constructs a house in a place where there is no sewerage facility and there is no development of the land, statutory body KMC is bound to make development and provide sewerage facilities for the tax which it receives from any individual like the Complainant.

            Further, it appears that the Complainant drew the attention of this Forum towards Section 29 of the KMC Act, 1980 which speaks as follow – Corporation shall having regard to the available resources provide civic services, including water supply, sewerage and drainage, solid waste management and construction and maintenance of streets and shall enforce the provisions of this Act and if sos required by any other law enforce for the time being the provisions of such law relating to town planning, land use, controls regarding regular lines of streets, etc. that means decision has to be taken by the KMC as to whether it has available resources for making development and providing the facilities mentioned in Section 29 of this Act.

            No individual like the Complainant can impose upon the Corporation that it has to perform duties. So, we are of the view that the reliefs sought for by the Complainant in respect of the facilities cannot be provided by this Forum. It may be for others that other appropriate Forums may provide such reliefs on other grounds.

            Complainant has also prayed for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental anxiety. It appears that Complainant failed to prove the allegation mentioned in the complaint petition and so there does not arise any question of awarding compensation or litigation cost.

            Hence,

ordered

            C/252/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.