Disposed

M.Johnson, v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Jan 2013WP(MD)/1133/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition. Directing Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representations regarding an alleged illegal conversion of a house into a church, the Court mandated an inquiry after serving notice to the petitioner and the fourth respondent. A timeline of 10 days and 12 weeks was specified for filing representations and passing orders.

What did the court decide?

Direct that Respondents 1 to 3 consider Petitioner's representations after serving notice; Respondents to decide within 12 weeks of receiving fresh representations submitted within 10 days.

M.Johnson, Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 22.01.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.1133 of 2013

¶7

M.Johnson ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 3.The Tahsildar, Thuckalay Taluk, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District. 4.Father of R.C.Church, St. Cabrial Athi Thoothar Alayam, Thikkurichi, Paccode Post, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to restrain the 4th respondent from converting a house as a Church illegaly in Survey No.250/9, New Door No.14-35, Old Door No.14-24 of Kallupalam, Kadukanattuvilai, Atrur Village, Thuckalay Taluk, Kanyakumari District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 17.07.2012 and 03.08.2012.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ashok Kumar

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan 1 to 3 Additional Government Pleader

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

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

¶15

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ seeking to issue a direction, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to restrain the 4th respondent from converting a house as a Church illegal in Survey No.250/9, New Door No.14-35, Old Door No.14-25 of Kallupalam, Kadukanattuvilai, Atrur Villae, Thuckalay Taluk, Kanyakumari District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 17.07.2012 and 03.08.2012.

¶16

¶17

Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent 1 to 3. As we are going to protect the interest of fourth respondent also, notice need not be sent to fourth respondent at this stage. By mutual consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the time of admission itself.

¶18

Mr.M.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition with a larger prayer, the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 17.07.2012 and 03.08.2012.

¶19

Heard Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 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, in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 17.07.2012 and 03.08.2012, by affording opportunity, this Court without going into the merits of the representations of the petitioner dated 17.07.2012 and 03.08.2012, constrained to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 17.07.2012 and 03.08.2012, by affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent by serving notice to him and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.

¶22

The petitioner is also directed to submit a fresh copy of the representations dated 17.07.2012 and 03.08.2012, to the respondents 1 to 3 within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of receiving such fresh copy of the representations dated 17.07.2012 and 03.08.2012, from the petitioner, the respondents 1 to 3 herein shall complete the above said exercise within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the representation.

¶23

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Deputy Registrar(LA)

¶25

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

Assistant Registrar

To:

1.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil. 3.The Tahsildar, Thuckalay Taluk, Thuckalay, Kanyakumari District.

¶30

+One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.2963

¶31

sj RL/5c -2/1/2013

¶32

Writ Petition (MD) No.1133 of 2013

¶33

22.01.2013

¶34

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

M.Johnson, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Johnson, 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

S. Murugan, Vs the District Collector

A.Devendran, Vs the District Collector