Allowed

K.Karuppanan v. the Assistant Engineer

Madras HC31 Jul 2017WP(MD)/11006/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging an encroachment removal order passed without a show cause notice. The court held the impugned order was illegal for lack of prior notice and quashed it, remitting the matter to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 05.05.2014 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent to proceed afresh after giving due notice.

K.Karuppanan Vs the Assistant Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 31.07.2017

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.11006 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶5

K.Karuppanan

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The Assistant Engineer, (Highways) Construction and Maintenance, Dindigul, Dindigul District. .. Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.Encroachment/2014/Vu.Po dated 05.05.2014 and quash the same as illegal and in violation of provisions of Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, Additional Government Pleader

¶10

ORDER

¶11

[Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. ]

¶12

The writ petitioner questions the impugned communication dated 05.05.2014 issued by the respondent herein.

¶13

The impugned order calling upon the writ petitioner to remove the encroachment has been passed straightaway and it is not preceded by any show cause notice. Therefore, on this sole ground, we quash the impugned order dated 05.05.2014. The matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent to proceed afresh in accordance with law, after giving due notice to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated

¶15

¶16

above. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II) /True copy/

¶18

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶19

¶20

The Assistant Engineer, (Highways) Construction and Maintenance, Dindigul, Dindigul District. +1cc to Mr.B.Saravanan,Advocate,SR.69206 +1cc to M/S.Special Government Pleader,SR.69725

¶21

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.11006 of 2014 Dated: 31.07.2017

¶22

SML/SM KK/JC/SAR3/08.08.2017/ 2P- 4C

¶23

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

K.Karuppanan v. the Assistant Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Karuppanan v. the Assistant Engineer

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

S.Sivaji Vs the Commissioner

Rosi Foundation, Vs the District Collector

S.K. Senthilkumar Vs the District Collector

Nallusamy Vs the District Collector

Jainusha Beevi, Vs the District Collectoro

Raja Lakshmi Vs the District Collector