Over Rs 1,500 crore has been spent on water and sewage infrastructure along OMR, yet over 30,000 units across 180 complexes remain unconnected. Residents in Adyar, Perungudi, and Sholinganallur are being forced to pay Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) to CMWSSB, despite builders having already collected between Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 3,00,000 per unit for these utilities.
In one instance, a 360-unit complex owes Rs 2.54 crore in IDC, averaging Rs 70,650 per flat. Builders claim the collected funds were spent on internal sumps and tanks, but these are basic construction requirements, not statutory payments. Do residents have legal grounds to sue builders for recovery of these funds and to compel them to fulfil their statutory obligations?
A developer’s liability typically terminates at the project’s internal connection points. The external network, including trunk mains for water and sewage, falls under the statutory purview of Metro Water (CMWSSB). While residents in areas like Thuraipakkam face significant costs, a builder can only be sued for these specific charges if the development/ construction agreement contains an explicit clause undertaking the payment of external Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC).
Internal sumps and tanks are standard construction requirements, separate from statutory IDC. Since most suburban infrastructure is rolled out incrementally based on budgetary provisions, there is often no fixed timeframe for completion. As CMWSSB has replaced the GCC in these jurisdictions, the responsibility for last-mile connectivity rests with them. Unless there is a documented breach of contract by the developer regarding these payments, legal recovery remains a challenge.
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a married person entering a live-in relationship does not commit an offence, asserting that courts cannot mix morality with law. This appears to contradict earlier judicial views that a formal divorce must precede such a relationship. Could this interpretation be misused by individuals to abandon spouses and live with new partners under legal protection? Does such an observation undermine the fundamental basis of the legally wedded marriage system, or are these contradictory views unlikely to hold up under closer legal scrutiny?
The distinction between morality and crime is essential to understanding judicial orders in matrimonial matters. While social morality exists, it is not static and continues to evolve over time.
For instance, the Indian Penal Code 1860 previously penalised "unnatural offences", a provision later struck down by the Supreme Court. Significantly, the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 does not contain this provision. Regarding the Allahabad High Court’s observation, the court merely clarified that such live-in relationships are not barred under the current law.
In this context, the judiciary maintains that every moral transgression cannot be treated as a penal offence. While these rulings may seem to challenge the traditional sanctity of marriage, they primarily reflect a legal boundary: courts cannot criminalise conduct based solely on societal disapproval.