Disposed

Elilarasu v. the District Collector

Madras HC4 Dec 2014WP(MD)/19626/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the Collector, Block Development Officer, and Panchayat President to urgently consider the petitioner's requests for a water connection and dispose of them within two weeks, noting the petitioner's status as a legal heir who had surrendered to previous court observations.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second and third respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 28.03.2013 and 05.04.2014 seriously and dispose of them within two weeks.

Elilarasu Vs the District Collector — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 04.12.2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

¶6

W.P(MD)No.19626 of 2014

¶7

Elilarasu ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli.

¶10

The Block Development Officer, Radhapuram Panchayat Union, Radhapuram,Tirunelveli District.

¶11

The President, Kuttam Panchayat, Kuttam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the second and third respondents to provide water supply connection to the petitioner's house bearing Door No.1/159, Edayankudi Vali, Kuttam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District by considering the petitioner's representation dated 05.04.2014 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Natarajan For R1 : Mr.K.Guru

¶14

Additional Govt. Pleader For R2 : Mr.D.Muruganandam Additional Govt. Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. According to the petitioner, he is residing in the address mentioned in the writ petition along with his family and

¶18

¶19

he is paying all the necessary property tax of his house to the Revenue Authorities without any default. However, there is no water supply connection to his house. In the year 2000, during the life time of his father, he made a representation to the second and third respondents for seeking water supply connection to his house. But the third respondent had not taken effective steps in this regard. Hence, the petitioner's father filed W.P.No.9416 of 2000 before this Court for taking appropriate action against the irregularities of the third respondent and this Court, on 13.06.2000, directed the first respondent therein to dispose of the representations of his father dated 28.01.2000 and 15.05.2000 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

Inasmuch as the third respondent had not provided water supply connection to his house, based on his father's representation, his father filed subsequent W.P.(MD).No.1594 of 2006 before this Court for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to provide water connection and during the pendency of the said writ petition, his father died and the said writ petition was dismissed as abated on 21.10.2010. However, this Court was pleased to make an observation as follows:

¶21

"It is made clear that in case of water connection not given to the petitioner's house, it is open to the legal heirs of the petitioner to move appropriate application before the concerned authorities, who will consider the same on payment of required water charges."

¶22

The real grievance of the petitioner is that even after passing of the order dated 21.10.2010 in W.P.(MD).No.1594 of 2006 by this Court, the respondents had not provided water supply connection to the petitioner's house. He being the legal heir of his father, accordingly, made a representation to the respondents on 28.03.2013, thereby requested the respondents 2 and 3 to provide water connection to his house. Although his representation was received, the respondents 2 and 3 had not taken any effective steps on his representation. That apart, on 05.04.2014, the petitioner had made a representation in and by which he had sought for providing of water supply connection to his house by the respondents. This representation has also not achieved the desired results. Hence, he has filed the present writ petition.

¶23

In view of the fact that the petitioner has a legitimate, reasonable and genuine grievance against the respondents in not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considering his earlier representation dated 28.03.2013 and the subsequent representation dated 05.04.2014, this Court without

¶24

¶25

delving deep into the merits of the representation so made, to prevent an aberration of justice, directs the second and third respondents to look into the representations of the petitioner dated 28.03.2013 and 05.04.2014 with all seriousness/earnestness and to dispose of the said representations positively within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by considering the petitioner's plight and to do the needful in providing water supply connection to his house bearing No.1/159, Edayankudi Vali, Kuttam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶26

It is made clear that the petitioner shall pay the requisite charges due to be paid to the concerned authorities as per rules and regulations.

¶27

With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

The District Collector, Tirunelveli District,Tirunelveli.

¶33

The Block Development Officer, Radhapuram Panchayat Union, Radhapuram,Tirunelveli District.

¶34

The President, Kuttam Panchayat, Kuttam Village, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶35

+1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.65316 +1cc to Mr. M.S.JEYAKARTHIK,Advocate in SR.No. 65759 akv

¶36

AA/05.01.2015/3p- 6c/

¶37

W.P(MD)No.19626 of 2014 04.12.2014

¶38

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

Elilarasu v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elilarasu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvi, Vs the District Collector

C.Ramesh Kumar Vs the District Registrar of

K. Sekar, Vs the President

Ganesan Vs the Superintendent of Police

V.Subramanian, Vs the Commissioner

R. Sivaraman Vs the Secretary Department