Dismissed

P.Rajendran v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Mar 2015WP/6401/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking injunction against constructing permanent structures, specifically a school, in a lake area. The Court stayed construction in the lake area but remitted the decision on the necessity of a new school to the District Administration.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued that no construction be carried out in the lake area; decision on school necessity remitted to respondents.

P.Rajendran Vs the District Collector — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.03.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

AND The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH

¶6

W.P.No.6401 of 2010
and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
P.Rajendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Villupuram.
2.The District Revenue Officer,
Villupuram.
3.The President,
Kandamangalam Panchayat Union,
Periyababu Samuthiram post,
Villupuram Taluk & District. ... Respondents

¶7

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents, their men, agents and subordinates from putting up any construction of a permanent structure in Survey Number 248, Periyababu Samuthiram post, Kandamangalam, Villupuram Taluk and District.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Kamalanathan Addl. G.P. for R1 and R2 Mr.S.Srinath for R3

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶13

The petitioner has approached this Court to prevent the construction of any permanent structure in S.No.248, Periyababu Samuthiram post, Kandamangalam, Villupuram Taluk and District. It is alleged that part of the lake area is sought to be utilised for construction of a school, though already school exists in proximity in S.Nos.270 and 271.

¶14

Interim order was granted on 09.06.2010, but, yet no counter-affidavit has been filed and thus, we do not know the stand of the respondents.

¶15

As to how many schools are in that area and whether more schools are required or not in that area, are within the domain of the District Administration. It is equally true that no construction could be made in a lake area.

¶16

We, thus, dispose of the writ petition with a direction that no construction be carried out in the lake area, but beyond that whether any Secondary School is required or not, would be for the respondents to consider the same. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.

¶17

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CO)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
bbr

¶18

¶19

1.The District Collector, Villupuram.

¶20

2.The District Revenue Officer, Villupuram.

¶21

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

¶22

3.The President,

¶23

Kandamangalam Panchayat Union, Periyababu Samuthiram post, Villupuram Taluk & District.

¶24

1 cc to Government Pleader, sr. 12356
1 cc to Mr.V. Raghavachari, Advocate, sr. 1276
W.P.No.6401 of 2010
BR (CO)
kk 17/3

¶25

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

P.Rajendran v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Rajendran 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

R.S.Bharathy Vs Secy.to the Govt.of T.N

Attavanai Ina Makkal Vs Chief Secretary to Government

The Official Liquidator Vs S. Malleswari

S. Padma Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Gopalakrishnan, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Dr.S.Kanagasundaram Vs the Secretary to Government