Petitioner sought writ to stop demolition of a permissioned temporary culvert. Respondents submitted counter affidavit stating the culvert was repaired and in use, rendering further court intervention unnecessary. Court dismissed the petition.
Writ Petition dismissed. No costs awarded.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.12.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
W.P.No.1091 of 2011
S.M.Mani .. Petitioner
Versus
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus forbearing the respondents, from demolishing or canceling the permission granted in Letter No.Va.2/Kho.207/440/P.R/2010 dated 14.09.2010 by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry on the repairing to work strengthen the culvert put up by the petitioner inpursuant to the above order dated 14.09.2010.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Dhanaram for Mr.G.Ethirajulu
For Respondents : Mr.S.Navanetham Additional Government Pleader
The Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus forbearing the respondents, from demolishing or canceling the permission granted in Letter No.Va.2/Kho.207/440/P.R/2010 dated 14.09.2010 by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry on the repairing work strengthen the culvert put up by the petitioner inpursuant to the above order dated 14.09.2010.
2.Heard Mr.R.Dhanaram, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.
3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of the land in re-survey No.100/2 and 3 and S.No.33/5.33/10 and 33/11 situated at Kunattur Village, Avinashi Taluk. It is stated that a channel is running on the southern side of the petitioner's land and the petitioner as well as the villagers find difficulty in taking the carts through the channel. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents to put up a culvert but no action has been initiated. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the 1st respondent seeking permission to put up a temporary culvert across the channel on his own cost. The first respondent herein after inspecting the place and verification of records by an order dated 14.09.2010 in his letter No.Va.2/Kho207/440/P.R/2010 granted permission to the petitioner to put up the temporary pipe culvert across the channel at his own cost. Unfortunately, the temporary pipe culvert got damaged due to heavy and continuous rain. After informing the 1st respondent, the petitioner himself started repairing work and the same was stopped by the persons, who were the real estate brokers stating that his permission to put up the culvert would be canceled. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein Paragraph 7 of the said counter has been stated that the respondents did not initiate any action to cancel the 1st respondent's order dated 14.09.2010 and to demolish the temporary pipe culvert at any point of time before or after the issuance of the interim direction given by the Hon'ble High Court at Madras. It is relevant to record the contents in Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, which is as follows:
“8.It is submitted that as the temporary pipe culvert had already been repaired by the petitioner and the petitioner and other farmers are using the pipe culvert now for crossing the supply channel, there is no need to pass any further orders in this regard by the Honourable High Court at Madras and hence it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition as the prayer of the petitioner was already executed favourably in the interest of public.”
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rm
To
1. The Executive Engineer,
Water Resources Department,
Kizh Bavani Irrigation Division,
Erode.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Water Resources Department,
Kizh Bavani Irrigation Division,
Gopichettipalayam, Erode District.
+1cc to M/s.G. Ethirajulu, Advocate, S.R.No.73730
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.73694
RP(CO)
EU 23.1.17
W.P.No.1091 of 2011
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition should be dismissed since the matter was already resolved based on the counter affidavit.
S.M. Mani
The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kizh Bavani Irrigation Division, Erode
The Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kizh Bavani Irrigation Division, Gopichettipalayam, Erode District
D. Krishnakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
