Partly allowed

Meenadshi, v. The District Collector

Madras HC3 Apr 2017WP/42636/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Municipality Commissioner to visit the petitioner's land, measure the area, and remove any remaining garbage within eight weeks, rejecting a claim that the waste was fully cleared.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to visit the property, make a measurement, and remove any remaining garbage within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Meenadshi, Vs The District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.04.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

¶5

W.P.No.42636 of 2016 W.M.P.No. 36554 of 2016

¶6

Meenadshi .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶9

The Commissioner, Perambalur Municipality, Perambalur, Perambalur District. ... Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to use the petitioner's lands in Patta No.695 in Survey Nos.224/5, 224/6, 224/7 and 74/1 to dump the garbage collected from Perambalur town and to remove the garbage already dumped there.

¶11

For Petitioner .. Mr.R.Asaithambi

¶12

For Respondents .. Mr.S.Diwakar,

¶13

Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 Mr.R.Govindasamy for R2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The matter lies in a very narrow compass. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be on the action of the second respondent in dumping the garbage into her private land.

¶16

2.Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the garbage has been removed fully whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is only a partial one.

¶17

3.The fact remains that some garbage has been removed. The question as to whether there is still some garbage yet to be

¶18

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

¶19

removed from the land of the petitioner or not being a disputed one cannot be gone into by this Court. Suffice it to direct the second respondent to visit the property in question after due notice to the petitioner, make a measurement with reference to the documents such as sale deed etc., and if any garbage is found still in the patta land of the petitioner, take appropriate action to remove the same. Needful will have to be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the presence of the petitioner.

¶20

4.The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
mmi
To
1. The District Collector,
Perambalur District,
Perambalur.
2. The Commissioner,
Perambalur Municipality,
Perambalur, Perambalur District.
+1cc to M/S. R. Govindasamy, Advocate Sr. 19695

¶22

+1cc to the Government Pleader, Sr. 20213

¶23

W.P.No.42636 of 2016

¶24

NRII(CO) VR(28/4/2017)

¶25

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

Meenadshi, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenadshi, 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

B.Prasad Vs The Superintending Engineer

P.Nandagopal Naidu, Vs The District Collector

Ms.a.Keerthi Vs The District Revenue Officer

M.Ramamurthy, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Xomox Employees Union Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Ragu Bernard Vs The Commissioner