Allowed

J.Brinso Raymond, S/O. Julius, v. the District Collector

Madras HC10 Mar 2017WP(MD)/3895/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition seeking permission for Rameswaram fishermen to use mechanized boats for a festival. The Court quashed the restriction but directed the petitioner to seek permission for safety boats instead, leaving the decision on safety-vessel usage to the authorities.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.02.2017 was quashed; the petitioner directed to seek permission for safety boats.

J.Brinso Raymond, S/O. Julius, Vs the District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.03.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.AUTHINATHAN

¶7

W.P(MD) No.3895 of 2017

J.Brinso Raymond

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Fisheries, Administrative Office Building, Thenampet, Chennai - 06.

¶13

3.L.Sagayaraj Coordinator, Vercode Saint Soochaiappar Church, Vercode, Rameswaram. ... Respondents

¶14

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records relating to the impugned orders in Na.Ka.C4/3895/2017 dated 10.02.17 (communicated to the petitioner on 01.03.17) and Na.Ka.C4/3895/2017 dated 28.02.17 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to permit the fisher man in and around Rameswaram with Mechanized boat (Vallam) to participate in St.Antony Church festival at Katchatheevu and also to forbear the third respondent from functioning as the Coordinator for the Saint Anthony function, Katchatheevu and consequently direct the State authorities to function as the Coordinator.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jerin Mathew

¶16

For RR - 1 & 2 : Mr.B.Pugazhendhi Additional Advocate General https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ assisted by Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.C4/3895/2017 and quash the same and also for directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the fisher man living in and around Rameswaram to go to St.Antony Church festival at Katchatheevu by using mechanized boat (Vallam), by way of issuing a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus.

¶21

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the fisher man living in and around Rameswaram are also entitled to attend St.Antony Church festival at Katchatheevu. But the first respondent without considering their condition, has refused to allow them by way of passing the impugned order dated 28.02.2017. Under the said circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

¶22

3.Mr.B.Pugazhendhi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has contended that some of the fisher man living in and around Rameswaram made a request to attend festival by using mechanized boats (Vallam) and the same is not a safety vessel. Under the said circumstances, the first respondent has passed the impugned order and the same is not liable to be quashed.

¶23

4.Considering the rival representations made on either side, this Court is of the view that using mechanized boats (Vallam) is not safety. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.

¶24

5.In fine, this Writ Petition is allowed without cost. The impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed in Na.Ka.C4/3895/2017 by the first respondent is quashed. However, the petitioner is directed to give a fresh representation to the second respondent by way of saying that the fisher man living in and around Rameswaram are willing to attend the festival by using safety boats and the second respondent is directed to consider the same forthwith. Consequently, WMP(MD)No.3083 of 2017 is closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (RTI)

¶27

/True Copy/

¶28

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

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

¶32

1.The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶33

2.The Commissioner of Fisheries, Administrative Office Building, Thenampet, Chennai - 06.

¶34

+1 cc to Mr.M.JERIN MATHEW, Advocate, SR.13854

¶35

W.P(MD) No.3895 of 2017 10.03.2017

¶36

mj SH/MSA/SAR-AD:10.03.2017:3P/4C

¶37

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

J.Brinso Raymond, S/O. Julius, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Brinso Raymond, S/O. Julius, 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

Vasanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

O.Ukirapandian Vs the Corporation of Madurai

S.Jothi Vs the District Collector

M.a.Joe Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kds.Somasundaram, Vs the District Collector

N.Mariyappan Vs the Executive Officer