Allowed

Solaimalai @ Sivasolaimalai v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Mar 2017WP(MD)/326/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents to dredge water tanks and restore channels. Based on an Advocate Commissioner's report confirming the work was not done, the court directed the respondents to perform the duties within one year.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed without costs; respondents 1 to 3 are strictly directed to perform dredging works and restore water channels within one year.

Solaimalai @ Sivasolaimalai Vs the District Collector — Madras HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 22.03.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.326 of 2017

¶7

Solaimalai @ Sivasolaimalai .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai.

¶10

2.The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Organisation, Vaigai Basin Bridge Circle, Public Works Department, Sivagangai.

¶11

3.The Executive Officer, Kandanur Town Panchayat, Sivagangai District. .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to dredging all the water tanks and restore its respective water channels situated in the third respondent jurisdiction (1.Kandanoor Kanmai 2.Palaiyur Kanmai 3.Kandanoor Alagunachiyaman Kovil Oorani 4.Kandanoor Pilliyar Madam Oorani (South Street) 5.Kandanoor Chettiyar Oorani 6.Kandanoor Servar Oorani 7.Kandanoor Vaigai Karuppar Oorani (2 nos.) 8. Kandanoor Mela Pillaiyar Kovil Oorani 9.Kandanoor Perumal Kovil Oorani 10.Kandanoor Ayyanar Kovil Oorani 11.Kavul Kollai Oorani 12.Palaiyur Vinai Theertha Vinayakar Oorani 13.Palaiyur Nalla Thanneer Oorani) within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.K.Guru, Additional Government Pleader.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J. ] This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to dredge all the water tanks and restore its water channels which situate in the jurisdiction of the third respondent, by way of issuing a Writ of Mandamus.

¶19

2.It is averred in the petition that within the jurisdiction of the third respondent so many water tanks are available wherein no dredging work has been done and in some water tanks so many encroachments are in existence. Under the said circumstances, a representation dated 22.11.2016 has been given by the petitioner and a reply containing false facts has been given and therefore the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

¶20

3.On the basis of the relief sought in the Writ Petition, for ascertaining the present situation of all water tanks which situate within the territorial jurisdiction of the third respondent, this Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner and accordingly, he inspected all the tanks and filed his report and in fact this Court has perused the Commissioner's report and ultimately found that in so many tanks dredging have not been done.

¶21

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has contended to the effect that the first respondent viz., the District Collector, Sivagangai has submitted a detailed report wherein it has been clearly stated about dredging works already done.

¶22

5.Considering the fact that on the basis of the Commissioner's report dredging work has not been done properly in all the tanks which situate within the jurisdiction of the third respondent, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶23

6.In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed without costs and the respondents 1 to 3 are strictly directed to perform dredging works of all the water tanks and channels which situate within the jurisdiction of the third respondent within a period of one year.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶26

/True Copy/

¶27

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

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

¶30

¶31

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai.

¶32

2.The Superintending Engineer, Water Resource Organisation, Vaigai Basin Bridge Circle, Public Works Department, Sivagangai.

¶33

3.The Executive Officer, Kandanur Town Panchayat, Sivagangai District.

¶34

+1cc to Mr.M.Arun Swaminathan, Advocate, SR.No:16606

¶35

+1CC TO Special Government Pleader, SR.No:17087

¶36

¶37

AE/SKN/RSK/SAR4/27.03.2017/3P/6C

¶38

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.326 of 2017

¶39

22.03.2017

¶40

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

Solaimalai @ Sivasolaimalai v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solaimalai @ Sivasolaimalai 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

D.S.Selvam, Vs the District Collector

K.Rajan Vs the District Collector

T.Rajarathinam Vs the Commissioner

V.Gopalsamy, Vs the Secretary

M.Thirupathi Vs the Principal Chief

V.Ramadass, Vs the State Commissioner of