Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Madurai Corporation to install height restrictors after a representation was ignored. Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioners representation.
Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation of 11.02.2015 and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 11.03.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI
W.P(MD)No.3380 of 2015
B.R.Vijayarajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai City, Madurai. ... Respondent
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to put up the Height Barricade Manual restrictor to restrict the heavy vehicles at the entrance of Fenner Colony, Viratipathu, Madurai 16 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2015 within the period stipulated by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Selvakumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Murali Standing Counsel
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN,J) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2.It is submitted that the writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to put up the Height Barricade Manual restrictor to restrict the heavy vehicles at the entrance of Fenner Colony, Viratipathu, Madurai 16 by considering the petitioner's representation dated 11.02.2015.
3.It is seen that the petitioner has sent written representations to the authorities. Since, no action was taken, the present writ petition has been filed for the aforestated relief.
4.Having gone through the accompanying affidavit, material papers and the submissions made by the learned counsel, we find it just and reasonable to direct the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders according to law.
5.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.02.2015 and pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law within a period of six weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(T&P) /True Copy/
Sub- Assistant Registrar
2
To
1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai City,Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.S.Selvakumar, Advocate in SR.No.11588
Sm:25.03.2015:2P/3C
W.P(MD)No.3380 of 2015 11.03.2015
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's representation within a stipulated period.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B. R. Vijayarajan
The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation
S. Tamilvanan
V. S. Ravi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
