Disposed

S.G.Roche, v. the Senior Divisional Engineer

Madras HC3 Feb 2014WP(MD)/1561/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to construct a permanent drain channel for flood prevention. Court noted petitioner is the sole beneficiary but blocked the railway's path due to land acquisition refusal. Dismissed petition as no fresh adjudication needed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach respondents with a suitable reply; no mandatory direction to construct drain issued.

S.G.Roche, Vs the Senior Divisional Engineer — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

S.G.Roche

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:03.02.2014 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶5

W.P(MD)No.1561 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

.vs.

¶8

1.The Senior Divisional Engineer (Works) Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railways, Tycaud, Trivandram-14, Kerala State.

¶9

2.The Government of Tamil Nadu

¶10

Repd. By its Secretary to Revenue Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶11

3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. (R2 & R3 impleaded as party vide order dated 10/01/2014 in MP(MD)1/2013) .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to construct a permanent drain channel on the eastern side adjacent to the newly laid track at “N.Panagudi” Railway Station on Tirunelveli – Nagercoil section at 314/4 K.M. Within a stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶13

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Natarajan For R1 :Mr.S.Manoharan

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to the respondent to construct a permanent drain channel on the eastern side adjacent to the newly laid track at “N.Panagudi” Railway Station on Tirunelveli – Nagercoil section at 314/4 K.M.

¶16

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶17

3.The petitioner filed earlier writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.12436 of 2009 for the same relief and the same was at his instance restricted to limited relief for considering his representation, dated 12.06.2009 on merits and in accordance with law within the period specified in the writ petition. An order was passed on 04.12.2009 and in pursuance of the said order, the petitioner sent a letter on 10.12.2009 along with the order copy to which a reply was communicated to the petitioner on 13.01.2010, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in and under which the petitioner is informed that the location of railway track on a particular point is too low when compared to Panakudi

¶18

¶19

Town and the same is likely to result in gushing out of rain and storm water straight to the private land and flooding therein during heavy rains and diversion of water from Bridge No.399 towards crossfall at nullah near Bridge No.400 (at Km314/600-700), for a length of about 400 Metres and it is necessary to prevent flooding of rain water and as the petitioner is the sole beneficiary of this cement concrete drain construction, the permission is to be given by the petitioner for the construction of drain through his land and the same has to be done only in his land and not in any other land. Though the reply was sent to the petitioner as early as on 10.10.2013, the petitioner without sending any reply, approached this Court for the same relief as sought in the earlier writ petition in W.P.No.12436 of 2009.

¶20

4.This Court was in this writ petition pleased to call for a report from the respondents railway. The respondents railway has filed a detailed report stating that the subject culvert which was meant to carry flood water from Western to Eastern side of track and the natural field course has been blocked by the petitioner and unless the land is acquired for the purpose of proceeding to construct the drain at the cost of the petitioner, the project work cannot be carried out. It is stated so mainly on the ground that the petitioner is the sole beneficiary of the same. That being so, it is for the petitioner to accept or not for blocking the path and the petitioner ought to have either approached this Court by challenging the letter dated 13.01.2010 or to send suitable reply to the railway and the petitioner ought not to have approached this Court by way of present writ petition for the same relief. In the considered view of this Court nothing remains to be adjudicated by this Court in this writ petition.

¶21

5.In the result, the writ petitioner is directed to approach the respondents with suitable reply and to send further representation to the Government and it is for the Government and the railway to take suitable decision in this regard.

¶22

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected M.Ps are closed. No costs. Ns Sd/-

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar[Crl side]

¶25

/True copy/

¶26

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

1.The Senior Divisional Engineer (Works)

¶29

Office of the Divisional Railway Manager,

¶30

Southern Railways, Tycaud, Trivandram-14, Kerala State.

¶31

2.The Secretary Revenue Department, Government of Tamil Nadu

¶32

Fort St.George, Chennai.

¶33

3.The District Collector, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate SR.No.7186.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.S.Natarajan, Advocate SR.No.6951.

¶36

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

¶37

2P/6C

¶38

W.P(MD)No.1561 of 2011 Dated:03.02.2014

¶39

RPB 10.04.2014

S.G.Roche, v. the Senior Divisional Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.G.Roche, v. the Senior Divisional Engineer

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

A.C. Periyaswamy Vs the Executive Director

S.M. Rojapoo, Vs the District Educational

D. Ponnammal, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

N.Rajasekarkan Vs the Sub-Registrar

G. Velayutha Nadar, Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

S.Maheswari Vs the Director