Disposed

G.Louisa v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC15 Dec 2016WP/25880/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order quashes a writ petition regarding the pathetic state of the road at Mecheri Railway Station. The Court directed Respondents to fully repair the road using proper material within three months, noting the Railways had delayed action for three years despite the petitioner's offer to share costs.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondents to ensure the road is fully repaired in a proper manner within three months from the date of the order.

G.Louisa Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27-8-2014

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.25880 of 2014

¶9

M.M.Mayielsaamy .. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The General Manager Southern Railway Chennai 600 003

¶12

2.The Divisional Railway Manager (Works)

¶13

Southern Railway Salem Division, Salem 636 005 .. Respondents

¶14

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take immediate action to widen from 3.5 meters to 7 meters and relaying of the approach road at Mecheri Railway Station by considering the petitioner's representation dated 5.8.2013 forthwith.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jagadeesan For Respondents : Mr.V.G.Sureshkumar

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(Order of the Court was made by THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶19

The pathetic state of the roads maintained by the Railways is quite apparent. Yet there is complete inaction. We would like to reproduce para 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit of the respondents as under:-

¶20

“4.I state that the pot-holes in the road within

¶21

the railway limits are repaired and attended to by the railways whenever occasion arises. However, due to the steep gradient prevailing on the right side of the station yard, rain water flows through this road which is one of the reasons for the road getting constantly damaged.

¶22

5.I state that the Level Crossing connects a major District Road between Macheri Town and Nangavalli. The width of the existing approach road in the railway premises is 5 metres with water bound macadam. Presently, the road is maintained by the staff of the Railway department. Though an agency was appointed under Agreement No.SA/376 dated 15.12.2010 for laying of a

¶23

¶24

tar road, due to problems which arose in relation to the said contract, the contract has been foreclosed on 13.8.2013. The road surface for about 60 metres on either side of the Level Crossing has been laid with tar and is in a good condition. The approach road is made up to water bound macadam and is therefore having pot-holes. If the Local Panchayat Union of Macheri is ready to share the expense on deposit terms, the railway administration is willing to widen and relay the said road.”

¶25

2.The aforesaid shows that for three years, the Railways were sitting over the issue of a simple task of repairing a road. We call upon respondents 1 and 2 both to ensure that the road is fully repaired in a proper manner with use of proper material so that a few days down the line, the same situation does not arise. The needful be done within three months from today.

¶26

3.The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. No costs.

¶27

¶28

4.The compliance report be filed within a week thereafter

¶29

failing which the respondents shall remain personally present in Court.

¶30

5.List for compliance on 8.12.2014.

27-8-2014

Index: yes/no

nsv

To:

1.The General Manager Southern Railway

¶36

Chennai 600 003

¶37

2.The Divisional Railway Manager (Works)

¶38

Southern Railway

¶39

Salem Division, Salem 636 005

¶40

¶41

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.

¶42

nsv

¶43

W.P.No.25880 of 2013

¶44

Dt: 27-8-2014

G.Louisa v. The State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Louisa v. The State of Tamilnadu

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

Tmb Transport Vs The Managing Director

Kris Michael D Silva Vs Union of India

A.Baskar, S/o.Ethiraj Vs The District Registrar

S.Dilliraj Vs The Deputy Director

Mrs.Amsa, Vs The Inspector General of

K.v.Sankara Subramanian, Vs The Honourable Commissioner