Disposed

S.Anwar v. the District Collector

Madras HC14 Jul 2017WP(MD)/15145/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a direction to provide a proper drainage system. The Court, without deciding the merits, directed the second respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders after affording a hearing within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders after a hearing within six weeks.

S.Anwar Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.07.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.15145 of 2015

¶7

S.Anwar ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The District Collector, Office of District Collector, Madurai. 2. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Union, Thiruparankundram, Madurai District.

¶10

The President, Vilacheri, Madurai – 6. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 01.06.2015 and consequentially direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to take necessary steps to provide proper drainage system at the petitioner's locality in order to maintain peacefulness among the petitioner's local residents.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, Government Advocate for R.1 Mr.N.Manoharan, for R.2 & R.3

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.06.2015 and to direct the second and third respondents to take necessary steps to provide proper drainage system at the locality of the petitioner.

¶15

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

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first

¶17

¶18

respondent as well the learned counsel appearing for the second and third respondents.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner made the representation dated 01.06.2015, to the first respondent seeking adequate steps to provide proper drainage facility in his locality, the same has not been considered so far and hence, he is before this Court.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it would be suffice, if the representation of the petitioner dated 01.06.2015, is disposed of by the respondents as per law.

¶21

Considering the limited scope of the relief sought for, this Court, without going into the merits of the petitioner's claim, directs the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.06.2015 and pass appropriate orders on its own merit and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other interested parties, if any, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authority concerned is free to deal with the matter on its own merit as per law.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The District Collector, Office of District Collector, Madurai.

¶28

1 CC TO Mr.R.SENTHIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 65498 + 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 65751

¶29

GK/SMN TE/JC/SAR-III : 24/07/2017 : 2P/4C

¶30

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

S.Anwar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anwar 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

M/S National Textiles Vs the Commissioner

R.Murali Vs the Superintendent Public

A. Kanagaraj, Vs the District Collector

G.K. Kannan, Vs the Commissioner

Pongalarasi, Vs the District Collector Cum

G.Manuvel Vs the District Collector