Disposed

K.Dharmendiran, v. the District Collector

Madras HC17 Jun 2015WP(MD)/4985/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court directed the District Collector and respondents to dispose of the petitioner's renewal application for a rough stone quarry within three months, affording a hearing opportunity before passing an order on merits.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to dispose of renewal application on merits within three months after affording opportunity of hearing.

K.Dharmendiran, Vs the District Collector — Mining and Natural Resources | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 17.06.2015

¶4

Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.4985 of 2015

¶6

and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015

¶7

K.Dharmendiran :Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶10

2.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Madurai Collectorate Campus, Madurai.

¶11

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶12

4.The Assistant Geologist (Mines), Madurai District, Madurai. : Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the renewal application of the petitioner dated 23.01.2015 for grant of rough stone quarry in patta S.F.No.707/4E (0.26.5), 707/5 (0.44.0), 712/1 (1.44.0), 712/3 (1.81.5) of Melakkal Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶14

For Petitioner :Mr.D.Sadiq Raja

¶15

For Respondents Mr.D.Muruganandam Additional Government Pleader

¶16

The prayer in the Writ Petition is for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1^st respondent to consider the renewal application of the petitioner dated 23.01.2015 for grant of rough stone quarry in patta S.F.No.707/4E (0.26.5), 707/5 (0.44.0), 712/1 (1.44.0), https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 712/3 (1.81.5) of Melakkal Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District in accordance with law within a time frame.

¶17

¶18

2.Mr.D.Muruganandam, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶19

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that it would be suffice if the renewal application of the petitioner is disposed of, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

4.In view of the limited scope of the prayer, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue involved, the first respondent is directed to consider the renewal application of the petitioner dated 23.01.2015, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording the petitioner and the persons, if any, likely to be affected by the order to be passed, an opportunity of being heard. If on a specified date the petitioner or the persons, if any, likely to be affected by the order to be passed does not appear for personal hearing, orders may be passed based on the available records after recording the absence of the Party/Parties.

¶21

5.With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 stands closed.

ASST REGISTRAR

TRUE COPY

SUB ASST REGISTRAR

sj TO

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶28

2.The Deputy Director of Geology and Mining, Madurai Collectorate Campus, Madurai. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai District, Madurai. 4.The Assistant Geologist (Mines), Madurai District, Madurai.

¶29

1cc T MR. D. SADUQ RAJA, ADV. SR31719 1CC TO THE SPL. GOVT PLEADER SR:> 31819

¶30

DM 26 JUNE 15

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.4985 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 17.06.2015

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2P:7C

K.Dharmendiran, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Dharmendiran, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Muthusamy Vs the Branch Manager

S. Ganapathy Subramanian Vs the Commissioner of Police

M. Narayanan Vs the Secretary to Government

P. Prakash Vs the Regional Join Registrar of

R. Govindaraju Vs the Government of Tamilnadu

M.Logendran Vs the Government of Tamilnadu