Disposed

K. Karuppasamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC19 Feb 2014WP(MD)/2692/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for directions to remove encroachments in a market area due to non-action on a representation. No appearance by petitioner. Court directed respondents to dispose of the representation expeditiously while adhering to natural justice, disposing of the petition without merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; respondents directed to consider and dispose of the representation on merits.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.02.2014 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶3

Writ Petition (MD) No.2692 of 2014

¶4

K.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶7

2.The Tahsildar, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶8

3.The Sankarankoil Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

4.The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner s representation dated 23.12.2013 by due process of law seeking to remove the encroachments made by the unauthorized vendors in the pathways abutting the Gandhiji Centenary Memorial Daily Vegetable and Fruit market and bus stand situated at Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Government Pleader.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. However, we have heard Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, considering the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nature of order that is to be passed.

¶15

¶16

2.The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to remove the encroachments made by the unauthorized vendors in the pathways abutting the Gandhiji Centenary Memorial Daily Vegetable and Fruit market situate at Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District by considering the petitioner's representation, dated 23.12.2013.

¶17

3.The petitioner has made a representation on 23.12.2013 before the respondents for the above said relief. Since no orders have been passed so far, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶18

4.We do not express any opinion on the merits of the representation of the petitioner dated 23.12.2013 except to direct the concerned respondent to consider and dispose of the said representation on its own merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. If any third party will be affected by the nature of the relief sought for by the petitioner or by any order to be passed, the authority shall hear such person to avoid the allegations of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶19

5.With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(R) /True Copy/

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 2.The Tahsildar, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. 3.The Sankarankoil Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Inspector of Police, Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli District +One cc to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate, SR.No.10649 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.10686 sms RL/7c – 28/2/2014

¶24

Writ Petition (MD) No.2692 of 2014

¶25

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

¶26

19.02.2014

K. Karuppasamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Karuppasamy 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

The Secretary Vs L.Sangeetha

C. Meyyar, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Muthu, Vs the District Collector

K. Selvam, Vs Palayampatti Grade I

Mukasa Kalyanapuram Sriram Vs the Chief Secretary

M. Kamaraj, Vs the Executive Engineer