Partly allowed

Dr.B.Mani, v. The Union of India

Madras HC19 Jun 2015WP/14973/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition seeking a mandate to construct Road Over Bridges at a railway crossing in Tamil Nadu, the Court observed that diversion was already provided and works would soon complete. Consequently, no directions were issued for the bridge, but the Municipal Commissioner was directed to clear a blocked drainage canal within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; no directions issued for Road Over Bridges. Municipal Commissioner ordered to clear blocked drainage canal within one month.

Dr.B.Mani, Vs The Union of India — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.06.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

W.P.No.14973 of 2015

¶7

Dr.B.Mani .. Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

1.The Union of India

¶10

Through Secretary to Government, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.

¶11

2.The State of Tamilnadu,

¶12

Rep. by its Secretary to Govt., State Highways, Fort St. George, Chennai.

¶13

3.The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai Central, Chennai.

¶14

4.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore.

¶15

5.The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Construction & Maintenance Cudalore.

¶16

6.The Municipal Commissioner, Panruti Municipality, Panruti, Cuddalore District.

¶17

7.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶18

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to construct and erect the Road Over Bridges and other civil Works along the Highways and roads across the railway crossings in the State of Tamil Nadu as per the guidelines to be framed by the Honourable Court and more particularly the 3^rd , 4^th , 5^th , 6^th and 7^th respondents at Manned Railway Level Crossing No.135A at 182/1/2 Rly Kms in Thiruthuraiyur-Panruti Line at Panruti across Chennai-Kumbakonam State Highway only after

¶19

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

¶20

preparing and notifying a definite scheme of execution of such works including a Designated Authority for Redress of Grievances of the affected public and causing wide publicity of such scheme amongst the local and affected populace in order to effectively educate them and seek their willing cooperation for successful and timely completion of such projects and further forbear them from undertaking or continuing such activities without complying the above directions and guidelines framed by this Court and without providing a designated authority to redress the grievances, if any, of affected and concerned persons.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaranathan

¶22

For Respondent : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar for RR 1 and 2 : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for RR 2, 4 to 7 O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶23

We have perused the plan produced by the Railways and the photographs, which show that diversion has been provided for and the work is expected to be completed in a couple of months by the Railways. Needless to say, when infrastructure is created, there is bound to be an element of inconvenience during the interrugnum period of time. We are, thus, of the view that no directions are called for.

¶24

2.However, while perusing the photographs produced by the Railways at page 5, we noticed a drainage canal close to the railway crossing no.135 which appears to be completely blocked. We call upon the learned Additional Government Pleader to instruct the 6^th respondent to take remedial measures within one month of receipt of the order.

¶25

3.Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.

¶26

True Copy

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

sra

¶29

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

¶30

To 1.The Secretary to Government, The Union of India Ministry of Railways, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary to Govt., The State of Tamilnadu, State Highways, Fort St. George, Chennai. 3.The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai Central, Chennai. 4.The District Collector, Cuddalore District, Cuddalore. 5.The Divisional Engineer (Highways) Construction & Maintenance Cudalore. 6.The Municipal Commissioner, Panruti Municipality, Panruti, Cuddalore District. 7.The Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Chennai. 1 cc to Mr. T.Sundaranathan, Advocate Sr.No.30698 1 cc to Government Pleader.Sr.No.30246 1 cc to Mr. R.T.Ramkumar, Advocate Sr.No.30372 W.P.No.14973 of 2015 kv(co) pmk.29.6.2015 19.06.2015

¶31

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

Dr.B.Mani, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.B.Mani, v. The Union of India

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

Jawaharlal Shanmugam Vs Union of India, Rep. by its

M.Vedavendan Vs The Commissioner

M.Madhesh Vs The District Collector

N.Rajkumar Vs P.Narayanan

Chellamuthu, Vs The Chairman

Dr.K.Sivaji, Vs University of Madras