Disposed

P.T.Loganathan, v. The District Collector

Madras HC9 Dec 2016WP/43058/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandamus for maintenance of the Erode District Court complex. The court held the matter should be investigated by the Principal District Judge with the Public Works Department to ensure expeditious correction of deficiencies.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Principal District Judge to examine the matter with the Public Works Department and take correctional action if deficiencies are found; petition disposed of.

P.T.Loganathan, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.12.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶7

W.P. No.43058 of 2016

¶8

P.T.Loganathan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The District Collector,
Erode District, Erode.
2.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Erode,
Erode.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Erode, Erode District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus to direct the
respondents to take appropriate action based on the
representation of the petitioner dated 24.05.2016 forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian
Govt. Pleader for RR 1 and 3
: Mr.M.Rajamathivanan for R-2
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶9

On hearing the learned counsel for parties, we do not find any material being placed on record by the petitioner. The allegation is about maintenance of the Court complex at Erode District Court. Some of the defects are set out in the affidavit in para 4.

¶10

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

¶11

2.Rather than maintaining it as a public interest litigation, we are of the view that the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, may look into the matter along with the Public Works Department / respondent no.3 and in case, deficiencies are found, to take correctional action expeditiously.

¶12

3.Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. No costs.

¶13

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sra
To
1.The District Collector,
Erode District, Erode.
2.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Erode,
Erode.
3.The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Erode, Erode District.
4.The Principal District Judge, Erode.

¶14

+1cc to Mr.M. Rajamathivanman, Advocate, S.R.No.72415 +1cc to Mr.C. Prabakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.72566 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.72709

¶15

RV(CO) EU 23.12.16 W.P.No.43058 of 2016

¶16

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

P.T.Loganathan, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.T.Loganathan, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. R. Jayakaran Isaac Vs the Church of South India

V. Manoharan Vs S.R.K. Prasad, Director

S.Ramasamy, Vs The Commissioner

M/s.Sathrasala Venkatachalam Vs The Secretary to Government

Sulaiman Zakariah Avenue Vs The Commissioner

Mr.v.Varadarajan, Vs The Secretary to the