Disposed

S. Murugan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Jan 2013WP(MD)/1091/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the removal of a water tank. The Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and afford an opportunity of being heard before passing orders on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2012 after affording an opportunity to all relevant parties to be heard.

S. Murugan, Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.01.2013 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS Writ Petition (MD) No.1091 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013

¶4

S.Murugan ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai.

¶7

3.The Assistant Commissioner, West Zone No.1, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their men, agents or anyone representing on behalf of them from in anyway proceed to remove the water tank situated at Ward No.3, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Karuppiahpuram, Keelapanangadi Village, Madurai North Taluk and District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sathish Babu

¶10

For 1st Respondent : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.Gunaseelan Muthiah 2 and 3 Government Advocate

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

(Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA and P.DEVADASS, JJ )

¶13

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition seeking to issue a direction, forbearing the respondents, their men, agents or anyone representing on behalf of them from in anyway proceed to remove the water tank situated at Ward No.3, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Karuppiahpuram, Keelapanangadi Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District.

¶14

Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent and Mr.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 2 and 3. By mutual consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

Mr.N.Sathish Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondents are taking steps to remove the water

¶17

¶18

tank situated at Ward No.3, Pillaiyar Kovil Street, Karuppiahpuram, Keelapanangadi Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District and in such an event the public residing in and around the area will be very much affected, as such the petitioner is constrained to file the Writ Petition. It is contended that the petitioner has also preferred a representation dated 19.12.2012, and till date no action has been taken.

¶19

Heard Mr.M.Govindan, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

We have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶21

Though the petitioner has come forward with a larger prayer, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has already submitted a representation, seeking for the same relief. Therefore, we are of the view that it is suffice for this Court to give a direction to the competent authority to consider such representation.

¶22

In view of the same, this Court without going into the merits of the representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.2012, constrained to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.2012, by affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as to other relevant parties and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶23

The petitioner is also directed to submit a fresh copy of the representation dated 19.12.2012, to the second respondent within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of receiving the said copy of the representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.2012, the second respondent herein shall complete the above said exercise within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the representation.

¶24

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 is closed.

¶25

Sd/Deputy Registrar (Accounts)

/True copy/

Assistant Registrar

To:

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶30

2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai.

¶31

3.The Assistant Commissioner, West Zone No.1, Corporation of Madurai, Madurai.

¶32

+1. CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.2962 sj

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

Writ Petition (MD) No.1091 of 2013 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 22.01.2013

¶35

TR : 23.01.2013 : 2p/5c : IT

S. Murugan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Murugan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Sasi, Vs the District Collector

Seetharaman, Vs the District Collector

S. Santha, Vs the Chief Executive Engineer

The President Vs Baskaran

A.Devendran, Vs the District Collector

M.Johnson, Vs the District Collector