Disposed

Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic v. State Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC2 Dec 2015WP/31546/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus for removal of encroachments in Virugambakkam Village. Court held this requires enquiry. Directed First Respondent to hold enquiry after notice to concerned parties and pass a speaking order within three months. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed First Respondent to hold an enquiry after notice to all concerned and pass a speaking order within three months.

Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Vs State Government… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.12.2015

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶7

Writ Petition No.31546 of 2012

¶8

K.R.Ramaswamy alias
Traffic Ramaswamy ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its Chief Secretary
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2.The District Collector,
Singaravelar Maaligai,
Chennai District, Chennai.
3.The Commissioner,
Chennai City Corporation
Rippon Buildings, Chennai 600003.
4.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Greater City,
Chennai 600 003. ... Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to remove the encroachments made in Kalliamman Koil Street – Vaniyar Street, Virugambakkam Village in Chennai and to restore the street to its original measurment in pursuant to the Revision Survey and Re-settlement Register of Virugambakkam Village considering the representation of the petitioner (Sent through Fax) dated 04.05.2012.

¶10

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

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy Party in Person

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.S.T.S.Moorthi,

¶13

Government Pleader

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

(The Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶16

The petitioner was before this Court for mentioning, but is not present when this matter is called out.

¶17

The petitioner makes a grievance of encroachment in and around Virugambakkam Village within the Chennai City limit as set out in the petition which has resulted in the width of the road being reduced, the road being the prime access to Chennai moffussil bus terminus and Guindy Kathipara Junction.

¶18

We are of the view that the aforesaid is a matter for the respondents/authorities to examine and direct the first respondent to hold an enquiry after notice to all concerned, including the petitioner and the private respondents, and pass a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶19

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.

¶20

List for compliance on 15.03.2016.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

ksr

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

1.The Chief Secretary to Government,
Government of TamilNadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai 9.
2.The District Collector,
Singaravelar Maaligai,
Chennai District, Chennai.
3.The Commissioner,
Chennai City Corporation
Rippon Buildings, Chennai 600003.
4.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Greater City,
Chennai 600 003.
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.65544
W.P.No.31546 of 2012
NM(CO)
CA(18/12/2015)

¶29

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

Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic v. State Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.K.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic v. State Government of Tamilnadu

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

K.v.Mani Vs The Collector of Kancheepuram

Telugu Sahithya Parishath Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by

K.Jayapal Vs the District Collector

A.Thiyaragaanan S/O.S.Arthnari Vs P.Mayalagu Rangarajan

P.Sujan Sundari Vs T.N.State Human Rights

R.Mariyammal Vs The District Collector