Disposed

R.Kannan v. The District Collector

Madras HC16 Feb 2016WP/1370/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition directed District Collector to investigate allegations that a Panchayat Multipurpose Hall was constructed on park land violating guidelines. Court positioned Collector to verify facts and pass a reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation to District Collector within two weeks for a reasoned order.

R.Kannan Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 16.02.2016

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition No.1370 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.1144 of 2016

¶6

R.Kannan ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector
Villupuram District
Villupuram
2.The Block Development Officer
O/o the Block Development Officer
Thirunavalur Panchayat Union
Ulundurpet Taluk,
Villupuram District-607 204
3.The Panchayat President
Sirulapattu Panchayat
Thinuvalaur Post Ulunderpet Taluk,
Villupuram District ...Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of mandamus, directing the 3^rd respondent to construct the Multipurpose Hall (Grama Panchayat Sevai Maiyam) at Sirulapattu Village, Thirunavalur Union, Ulunderpet Taluk, Villupuram District in the light of the 2^nd respondent proceedings in Na.Ka.Aa.6/---/2015 dated 29.05.2015.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Elumalai For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajeswaran, AGP for R1 Mr.RAS.Senthilvel for R2&3 O R D E R

¶9

Petitioner has filed this writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the 3^rd respondent to construct the Multipurpose Hall (Grama Panchayat Sevai Maiyam) at Sirulapattu Village, Thirunavalur Union, Ulunderpet Taluk, Villupuram District by taking into consideration the proceedings dated 29.09.2015.

¶10

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

¶11

By the said proceedings, guidelines have been laid down as to where the said center has to be located. The petitioner's case is that without following the same the 3^rd respondent has constructed the center in a land which has been ear-marked as park. The learned counsel has produced the copy of layout which has been approved in proceedings 78/2005 and it is sated that the place which has been now chosen for construction has been reserved as a park site. The 2^nd respondent has filed his counter affidavit contending that the Administrative sanction was obtained prior for the construction and it has been done after following the guidelines issued by the first respondent and in terms of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 19.07.2013. Further the 2^nd respondent would state that there is no deviation in the site selected for VPSC construction and the site selection has been properly done and the Revenue Authorities has also certified the same.

¶12

In the light of the above contention, which is raised in the writ petition, this court is of the view that the District Collector should go into the issue as to whether the complaint given by the petitioner is sustainable and whether the allegations made thereunder are correct. This requires to be done since the 2^nd respondent has taken a stand that all norms have been fully complied with. However, the petitioner' case is that the construction has been put up in the site which has been reserved as a park. Therefore, this is a fit case where appropriate direction should be issued so as to enable the 1^st respondent to consider the entire matter.

¶13

For the above said reasons, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit a representation along with the copy of this order to the 1^st respondent enclosing the copies of the earlier representation and other records in his possession and such representation shall be given by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter the 1^st respondent shall call for appropriate reports from his Subordinates and shall pass an reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶14

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶15

True Copy

¶16

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

The District Collector
Villupuram District
Villupuram
2. The Block Development Officer
O/o the Block Development Officer
Thirunavalur Panchayat Union
Ulundurpet Taluk,
Villupuram District-607 204
3. The Panchayat President
Sirulapattu Panchayat
Thinuvalaur Post
Ulunderpet Taluk,
Villupuram District
+ 1 cc to Mr.T.Elumalai, Advocate SR 9623
+ 1 cc to Govt.Pleader SR 9974
+ 2 ccs to Mr.R.A.S.Senthilvel, Advocate SR 9705
sr(co)
prk23/2 Writ Petition No.1370 of 2016
&
W.M.P.No.1144 of 2016

¶20

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

R.Kannan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kannan 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

K.Sivalingam Vs the Chairman

Siva Blue Metals Vs C.v.Sankar IAS

R.Chandrasekar Vs Shakthi

K.Mathaiyan @ Nehru Vs the Registrar

R.Sridharan Vs Jayakumar

Rajendran Vs Mrs.Gajalakshmi