Dismissed

Mr.J.Thangaraj v. 1. the Secy to Government

Madras HC22 Apr 2015WP/17014/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Article 226 seeking cessation of illegal quarrying by the 8th respondent in Kanyakumari, the bench accepted counsel's submission that operations stopped in 1999. The court held the petition infructuous and disposed of it without Registrar's input beyond the order head.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as infructuous based on the representation that quarry operations stopped in 1999.

Mr.J.Thangaraj Vs 1. the Secy to Government — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.04.2015

¶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.17014 of 1999

¶7

(Letter treated as WP)

¶8

J.Thangaraj .. Petitioner vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Assistant Director of Mines, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District. 5.R.D.O., Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. 6.Tahsildar of Vilavancode, Kanyakumari District. 7.The Inspector of Police, Nidravila, Kanyakumari District. 8.Selvaraj 9.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai. (R-9 impleaded as per Order dt.19.02.2015 in WP) .. Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to take necessary action on the petitioner's complaint and forbearing

¶10

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

¶11

the respondents 1 to 3 from granting further licence to the 8^th respondent to carry out the quarry – operation in S.No.110/1 of Arudesom Village, Vilevancode. Taluk Kanyakumari District and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 7 to stop the illegal quarry operation being done by the 8^th respondent.

¶12

For Respondents .. Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy
Govt. Pleader for RR 1 to 7
.. Mr.K.Doraisami, S.C.
For Mr.P.Saravana Somiyan for R-8
.. Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran for R-9
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)
Learned counsel for the 8 th respondent states that the quarry
operation by the 8 th respondent has been stopped since 22.09.1999 and
the petition has, thus, become infructuous.
2.Writ petition, thus, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Industries Department, Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District.
3.The Assistant Director of Mines,
Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District.
5.R.D.O., Padmanabhapuram,
Kanyakumari District.

¶13

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

¶14

6.Tahsildar of Vilavancode, Kanyakumari District. 7.The Inspector of Police, Nidravila, Kanyakumari District.

¶15

8.The Chairman
T.N.Pollution Control Board,
Anna Salai, Chennai.
1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No21960
1 cc to M/s.Aiyar & Dolia,Advocate, SR.No.22265
W.P.No.17014 of 1999
ku(co)
pmk.22.5.2015

¶16

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

Mr.J.Thangaraj v. 1. the Secy to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.J.Thangaraj v. 1. the Secy to Government

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

S.Gunasekaran, S/o Sellamuthu, Vs The District Collector

J.Elumalai Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Puduvai Environment and Vs The Government of Puducherry

C.Saravanan Vs the Member Secretary, T.N.

Sout India Corproation Ltd. 73 Vs Infrastucture Leasing and Fian

M/S Suraksha Foundation Vs State of Tamilnadu