Disposed

K.Selvendran v. the Distric Collector

Madras HC1 Sept 2014WP(MD)/14343/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an order regarding police station construction in a coastal zone. The court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation in light of a related Public Interest Litigation and disposed of the petition without adjudicating the merits.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of; the 1st respondent directed to consider the petitioner's representation along with the PIL.

K.Selvendran Vs the Distric Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.09.2014

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.14343 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2014

¶7

K.Selvendran ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvadanai,

¶12

Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

4.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Costal Security Group, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.B3/80765/2010 dated 22.07.2011 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to maintain the open space as it is without any deviation.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Paneerselvam for M/s.C.S.Associates For Respondents : Mr.S.Sathesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner seeks for a direction Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.B3/80765/2010 dated 22.07.2011 and quash the same and consequently, direct the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents to maintain the open space as it is without any deviation.

¶18

¶19

2.The petitioner is the President of Thondi Pudukudi Fishermen Cooperative Society. The grievance of the petitioner is that a Police Station has been constructed in violation of the Costal Regulation Zone Notification. That apart, it is submitted that the fisherman are using the said area for preparatory work before going to fishing in sea and therefore, the respondents should have selected a different place for the purpose of construction of the Police station.

¶20

3.However, these issues cannot be gone into at this stage and it is for the 1^st respondent to look into the matter. When there is an allegation that there is a violation of the Costal Regulation Zone Notification.

¶21

4.It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similar grievance has expressed by way of a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.(MD)No.9892 of 2014 filed by one V.Balasubramaniam. In the said Writ petition, there was a prayer made to restore the Om Athi Parasakthi Temple at Pudukudi, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. Wherein it is stated that the area should be maintained as a open place. The Hon’ble Division Bench by order dated 22.07.2014 disposed of the Writ petition issuing the following direction:

¶22

“7.In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, dated 16.06.2014, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and the other persons concerned, if any. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the representation dated 16.06.2014, to the 1^st respondent along with a copy of this order. However, it is made clear, that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶23

8.The Writ petition stands disposed of, with the above directions. Consequently, the connected M.P.is closed. No costs.”

¶24

5.In the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the 1^st respondent is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation also along with the representation given by the said V.Balasubramanian which has already been directed to be considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

¶26

The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps.are closed.

¶27

Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶32

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶33

3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvadanai, Ramanathapuram District.

¶34

4.The Additional Superintendent of Police, Costal Security Group, Ramanathapuram District.

¶35

+1cc to M/S.C.S.Associates, Advocate, in SR. No.49371.

¶36

W.P.(MD)No.14343 of 2014 01.09.2014

¶37

nbj msm 02.09.2014 p3/6c(IT)

¶38

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

K.Selvendran v. the Distric Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Selvendran v. the Distric Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeppiaar, Vs the District Collector

Kamatchiamma Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Poornamayan Vs the Superintendent of Police

P. Eswari Vs the Superintendent of

Sara Aqua Minerals, Vs the Bureau of Indian Standards

P. Senthil Ganesh, Vs the Joint Registrar