Allowed

T.Ramachandran v. The Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC11 Aug 2015WP/21411/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board to repair a damaged water pipeline within two weeks due to non-supply despite a representation. The writ petition was disposed of and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to repair the water pipeline of the petitioner's premises within two weeks of receipt of the copy of this order.

T.Ramachandran Vs The Assistant Commissioner — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.08.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶5

W.P.No.21411 of 2015

¶6

and M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶7

T. Ramachandran .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Zone-12, Alandur, Chennai - 16. 2.M/s. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Rep. by its Managing Director, No/ 1, Pumping Station Road, Chintadripet, Chennai-600 002. 3.The Assistant Engineer, M/s. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Depot-165, Balaji Nagar Main Road, Area-XII, Alandur, Adambakkam, Chennai-88. .. Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to pass a considered order on the application given by the petitioner on 16.06.2015 and consequential relief by way of direction directing the 2nd and the 3rd respondents to rectify and repair the water pipe line leading to property situated at Door No. 2/8, Ganga Street, Bharat Nagar, Adambakkam, Chennai-88 and restore the normal water supply to the premises.

¶9

For Petitioner .. Mr.R.Udhayakumar For Respondent No.1 .. Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, Standing Counsel for Chennai Corporation For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3.. Mr. M. Jothikumar.

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner is the owner of the property bearing Door No. 2/8, Ganga Street, Bharat Nagar, Adambakkam, Chennai-88 and there is already water connection at the petitioner premises given by Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Since the water pipelines got damaged and water supply is not there for the petitioner's premises, he has given a representation on 16.06.2015. In spite of the receipt of the representation by the respondents, no action has been taken, hence the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶14

Since it is the repair work to be done with respect to the petitioner's premises with regard to the existing water supply connection, it is appropriate to direct the respondents, particularly, the 3rd respondent to repair the water pipeline of the petitioner's premises within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶15

Call the matter for compliance on 28.08.2015. Sd/Asst.Registrar(CSIII) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar 1.The Assistant Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Zone-12, Alandur, Chennai - 16. 2.M/s. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Rep. by its Managing Director, No/ 1, Pumping Station Road, Chintaripet, Chennai-600 002.

¶16

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

¶17

3.The Assistant Engineer,

¶18

M/s. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Depot-165, Balaji Nagar Main Road, Area-XII, Alandur,

¶19

Adambakkam, Chennai-88.

¶20

+1 cc to Mr.R.Udayakumar, Advocate sr.12001/15 +1 cc to Mr.P.V.Selvakumar, Standing Counsel sr.36021

¶21

W.P.No.21411 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
kgk(co)
aa28/08/2015

¶22

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

T.Ramachandran v. The Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ramachandran v. The Assistant Commissioner

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

A.Velusamy, Vs The District Collector

Sri Abirami Enterprises, Vs The Commissioner

M.Pandu Vs The Commissioner

Chinnappa Gounder Vs The State of Tamilnadu

G.Thanabhakiyam Vs The Superintending Engineer

P.Periyannan Vs The Collector