Dismissed

S.Lajapathi v. the District Collector

Madras HC10 Jul 2017WP(MD)/12248/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition under Article 226 sought a Mandamus to direct respondents to resolve water scarcity in Kottakudi Village by erecting a new bore well and utilizing an existing tank. The petitioner's representation was accepted, and the fourth respondent was directed to consider it.

What did the court decide?

Fourth respondent directed to consider the petitioner's representation regarding water supply and take appropriate action expeditiously.

S.Lajapathi Vs the District Collector — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.07.2017 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.12248 of 2017

S.Lajapathi

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶7

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶8

3.The Block Development Officer, R.S.Mangalam, Ramanathapuram District.

¶9

4.The Executive Officer, Kottakudi Village, R.S.Mangalam Union, Ramanathapuram District.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take adequate measures to resolve the water scarcity of the villagers by erecting new bore well nearby the village Tank and supply water to their village and further direct the respondents to utilize the existing water tank in the village having capacity of 5000 litres for the welfare of the public on the basis of the representation dated 27.06.2017.

¶12

For petitioner : Mr.M.Iniyavan For respondents : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader

¶13

for R.1 and R.2

¶14

: Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Government Advocate

for R.3 and R.4

O R D E R

***********

[Order of the Court was made by K.K.SASIDHARAN, J. ]

¶19

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition to direct the respondents to take action for resolving the water scarcity in Kottakudi Village.

¶20

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

¶21

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 3 and 4, on instructions, submitted that the

¶22

¶23

representation submitted by the petitioner would be considered by the fourth respondent and appropriate steps would be taken to redress his grievance.

¶24

We direct the fourth respondent to consider the representation and take appropriate action to provide drinking water to the villagers as expeditiously as possible.

¶25

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶28

/True Copy/

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

To:

¶31

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District.

¶32

2.The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District.

¶33

3.The Block Development Officer, R.S.Mangalam, Ramanathapuram District.

¶34

4.The Executive Officer, Kottakudi Village, R.S.Mangalam Union, Ramanathapuram District.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.M.INIYAVAN Advocate in SR. NO.64295

¶36

+1cc to THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER in SR. No.64581 +1cc to MR.AAYIRAM K.SELVAKUMAR in SR. No.64691

¶37

SSL/DSK

¶38

JS/MR.KKR/SAR.2/19.07.2017/2P-8C

¶39

W.P.(MD)No.12248 of 2017 10.07.2017

¶40

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

S.Lajapathi v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Lajapathi 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

The Tneb., Rep. by Its Vs R.Ramalingam, (Retd Aee)

G.Murugan Vs the Chief Engineer

Ganesh Kumar Vs the District Collector

L.Ravichandran, Vs the District Collector

M.Mohamed Rafi Vs the Chairman, Bar Council of

E. Santhappan Vs the District Munsit