The Madras High Court has questioned the Greater Chennai Corporation’s failure to provide adequate motorable roads and encroachment-free footpaths despite periodically increasing property tax, water tax, licence fees and other civic charges collected from residents.
A division bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice R Rajesh Vivekananthan made the observations while hearing a writ petition filed by Saju Alex, a resident of Scheme Road in Ellaiamman Colony, Teynampet. The petitioner sought directions to remove encroachments, prevent illegal parking and stop unauthorised automobile repair works on the road.
The court said basic civic infrastructure remained “grossly inadequate” in Chennai, according to a report by DT Next. It observed that the Greater Chennai Corporation had a corresponding duty to provide basic amenities to residents while collecting taxes and other statutory charges from them.
The bench also said that authorities must show the same urgency in providing civic infrastructure as they do in taking action against citizens for non-payment of taxes and charges. The observation places the city’s road and footpath conditions within the wider question of whether municipal revenue collection is matched by visible and usable public services.
The case concerns conditions on Scheme Road in Teynampet, where the petitioner has sought action against encroachments, vehicle parking and unauthorised automobile repair activity. Such activity can affect the usable width of roads and pedestrian space, although the court’s proceedings, as reported, do not specify the extent of the alleged encroachments or the Corporation’s prior enforcement action in the area.
The court granted the authorities two weeks to file an action-taken report and details of proposed measures for improving infrastructure and providing encroachment-free footpaths in Chennai and surrounding areas. The report is expected to indicate what steps the authorities propose to take in response to the concerns raised before the bench.
The proceedings also bring attention to the distinction between collecting civic charges and delivering municipal services. Property tax, water tax, licence fees and other charges form part of the financial relationship between residents and local authorities. The court’s remarks do not determine the adequacy of the Corporation’s finances or establish how specific collections are spent, but they require the authorities to respond on the condition of basic infrastructure and the measures proposed for improvement.
The action-taken report will be the next formal milestone in the matter. The bench adjourned the case to October 10, when the authorities’ response and proposed measures are expected to be considered.
