Dismissed

K. Pandiarajan, v. the District Collector

Madras HC11 Feb 2014WP(MD)/2204/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Pandiarajan seeking mandatory removal of an alleged encroachment. The court held the matter to be in private interest rather than public interest, thus warranting no intervention by the state. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded. No directive was issued to respondents.

K. Pandiarajan, Vs the District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.02.2014 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶4

Writ Petition (MD) No.2204 of 2014

¶5

K.Pandiarajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Sivagangai Division, Sivagangai District. 3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Sivagangai Division, Sivagangai District. 4.The Tahsildar, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 5.The Assistant Engineer, National Highways, Sivagangai Division, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 4th and 5th respondents to remove the encroachments in Cochin to Thondi National Highways, Sivagangai Division, particularly in Survey No.180 Kalaiyarkoil Village, Sivagangai District.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vivekanandan For Respondents : Mr.M.Alagadevan, Special Government Pleader.

¶8

ORDER

¶9

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUDHAKAR,J. )

¶10

The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondents 4 and 5 to remove the encroachments in Cochin to Thondi National Highways, Sivagangai Division, particularly in Survey No.180 Kalaiyarkoil Village, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sivagangai District.

¶11

¶12

2.Though the writ petition has been filed in public interest, we find from the representation, dated 30.12.2013 that the petitioner has expressed his grievance against one third party who said to have put up a meat stall in front of his shop as an encroachment and that has not been removed. Further, we find that the issue raised in the writ petition is in private interest and not in public interest. Therefore, no mandamus could be granted in a case of this nature.

¶13

3.In view of the above, we find no justification to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶14

Sms Sd/Assistant Registrar[AS] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 2.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Sivagangai Division, Sivagangai District. 3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Sivagangai Division, Sivagangai District. 4.The Tahsildar, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai. 5.The Assistant Engineer, National Highways, Sivagangai Division, Sivagangai District. +1cc to Mr.M.Vivekanandan, Advocate SR.No.8617. +1 cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No.9458. Writ Petition (MD) No.2204 of 2014 Dated:11.02.2014 2P/8C RPB 24.02.2014

¶15

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

K. Pandiarajan, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Pandiarajan, 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

R.Selvakumar, Vs the Block Development Officer

K.Ramachandran Vs the Assistant Engineer

K.Rajendran, Vs the Assistant Engineer

M.Dharmaraj, Vs the Assistant Engineer

Hotel & Bar (FL3) Association Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Sollalagan Vs the District Collector