Partly allowed

Govindaraju, v. the District Collector

Madras HC16 Mar 2017WP(MD)/2632/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed this writ petition in part, directing the Commissioner of Trichirapalli City Corporation to consider a representation dated 29.08.2016 regarding parking facility at Arulmigu Renganatha Swamikal Temple. The petition was disposed of without cost.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to look into the representation dated 29.08.2016 and dispose of the same within 15 days.

Govindaraju, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶6

and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶7

W.P(MD) No.2632 of 2017

¶8

Govindaraju ... Petitioner

¶9

-vs-

¶10

1.The District Collector, Trichirapalli District, Trichirapalli.

¶11

2.The Commissioner, Trichirapalli City Corporation, Trichirapalli.

¶12

3.S.Nagaraj ... Respondents

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing to the 2nd respondent to allot a notified parking place in Arulmigu Renganatha Swamikal Temple at Srirangam and Ammamandapam and collect parking fees from tourist buses and van.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gopalamanikandan For R – 1 : Mr.M.Govindan Special Government Pleader For R – 2 : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan, AGP For R – 3 : Mr.M.Saravanakumar

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.]

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the second respondent to notify a parking place in Arulmigu Renganatha Swamikal Temple at Srirangam and Ammamandapam by way of issuing a Writ of Mandamus.

¶18

2.It is seen from the records that on 29.08.2016 a representation has been given, but the same has not been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ considered by the second respondent. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶19

¶20

3.In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed in part without cost. The second respondent viz., Commissioner, Trichirapalli City Corporation is directed to look into the representation dated 29.08.2016 and dispose of the same within a period of 15 days.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar (R)

¶22

/True Copy/

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

To 1 The District Collector, Trichirapalli District, Trichirapalli.

¶25

2 The Commissioner, Trichirapalli City Corporation, Trichirapalli.

¶26

+1CC to M/S.N.S.Karthikeyan, Advocate, SR.No. 15248 +1CC to M/S.S.Gopala Manikandan, Advocate, SR.No. 15192 +1CC to M/S.M.Saravana kumar, Advocate, SR.No. 15258

¶27

+1CC to the Special Government Pleader SR.No. 15506

¶28

W.P(MD) No.2632 of 2017

¶29

¶30

AM/SV MMS/SAR 3/24.03.2017/2P/7C

¶31

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

Govindaraju, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindaraju, 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

R.Anandhakumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Narayanan Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Varadharajan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ravichandran Vs the Disdtrict Collector

M.Nallathambi, Vs the Commissioner

P.Murugan Vs the Superintendent of Police