Dismissed

G.Ramachandran, v. the Distirct Collector

Madras HC15 Mar 2017WP(MD)/24446/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original writ petition under Article 226, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus directing specific respondents to protect the petitioner to draw and sell water from his land, acknowledging the State's regulatory powers during drought.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with liberty to approach the Court if a cause of action arises; no costs.

G.Ramachandran, Vs the Distirct Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.24446 of 2016 and WMP (MD) No.17641 of 2016

¶7

G.Ramachandran ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

The District Collector, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District. 3. The Inspector of Police, Kurumpur Police Station, Thoothukudi. 4. The President, Sethukkuvaidhan Panchayat, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary protection to the petitioner to carry out his business of drawing and selling water from his land at Survey No.548(1B) 593(1) Sethukuvaidhan village, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi Dist.

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This petition has been filed, seeking to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to provide necessary protection to the petitioner to carry out his business of drawing and selling water

¶15

¶16

from his land at Survey No.548(1B) 593(1) Sethukuvaidhan village, Thoothukudi Taluk, Thoothukudi Dist.

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that he is drawing water from his own land and selling the same to outsiders and that the President of Sethukkuvaidhan Panchayat / 4th respondent herein is preventing the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court with the above prayer.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the earlier orders of this Court in W.P.(MD)12668 of 2012 and W.P.(MD) No.2953 of 2010.

¶19

It is true that one can draw water from his own land for his use, but when there is a drought situation in the State of Tamil Nadu, the State does have the power to regulate the water resources for equitable distribution.

¶20

Recording the same, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court as and when a cause of action arises. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(C.O)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

To:

¶26

The District Collector, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

¶27

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.

¶28

The Inspector of Police, Kurumpur Police Station, Thoothukudi.

¶29

+One cc to Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi, Advocate, SR.No.15693 +One cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR.No.15079 ar

¶30

RL/6C/2P/SKN/RSK/10.4.2017

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.24446 of 2016

¶32

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

¶33

15.03.2017

G.Ramachandran, v. the Distirct Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ramachandran, v. the Distirct Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalaiselvi, Vs State Rep. through

Nondichamy @ Samy, Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.

Sheik Mydeen Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Krishnan, Vs Mr.Senthil Kumar

L.Narayanan, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Elangovan Vs the State Rep. by It Secretary