Disposed

Nanjai Uthukulli Gramam, v. The District Collector

Madras HC2 Feb 2018WP/2194/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a public welfare association, sought restoration of drinking water supply via street pipelines disconnected allegedly due to commercial misuse. Court directed respondents to reconsider the grievance and act on representations within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's grievance and representations within two weeks for appropriate action on water supply.

Nanjai Uthukulli Gramam, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.2194 of 2018

¶6

Nanjai Uthukulli Gramam,
Vinayagar Nagar,
Savadipalayam Pudur Kudiyuruppu
Public Welfare Association
Represented by
Mr.S.R.Nallasivam. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector
Erode District,Erode.
2.The Block Development Officer
Modakuruchitaluk, Erode District.
3.The Assistant Director
Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Erode District. .. Respondents

¶7

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate steps to issue necessary orders to the 2nd respondent to supply drinking water to the residents of the Savadipalayam Pudur, Modakuruchitaluk through the pipe lines laid in the streets in the residential area and through the tankers in case of water scarce.

¶8

For Petitioner: Mr.S.Sankar

¶9

For Respondents: Mr.E.Balamurugan Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R3 Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar, Government Advocate for R2.

¶10

Mr.E.Balamurugan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for R1 & R3. Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate takes notice for R2. By consent of the

¶11

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

¶12

parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶13

The petitioner claiming to be a Public Welfare Association of Savadipalayam Pudur, has filed the present writ petition seeking for a mandamus directing the first respondent to take appropriate steps to issue necessary orders to the second respondent to supply drinking water to the residents of the Savadipalayam Pudur, through the pipelines laid in the streets in the residential areas and through the tankers in case of water scarcity.

¶14

Heard both sides.

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the drinking water facilities already provided to the village people, by way of street pipelines was disconnected, without any valid reasons and therefore, about 200 families residing in the said village are put to great suffering. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking for restoration of the water supply through the street pipelines.

¶16

The learned Government Advocate for the second respondent, based on instructions, submitted that some people indulged in extracting the water through the street pipelines and selling the same commercially, which necessitated the second respondent to disconnect the water lines, which supplied drinking water to the houses in the residential areas.

¶17

Needless to say that if some persons indulge in such illegal activities, by drawing the water for commercial usage, it is for the authorities concerned to take action against such erring persons in accordance with law. But at the same time, the second respondent cannot cite the alleged illegality committed by some persons, as the reason for disconnecting the water supply to the entire village, through the street pipelines. Therefore, it is for the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner, for which, they have made their representations on 16.10.2017 and 17.10.2017. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, by directing the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take appropriate action on the said representations, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS V )

¶20

//True copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

1.The District Collector Erode District, Erode.

¶26

2.The Block Development Officer Modakuruchitaluk Erode District.

¶27

3.The Assistant Director
Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj
Erode District.
+2cc to Mr.S.Sankar, Advocate SR.No.8646
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.8753
W.P.No.2194 of 2018
GN(13/02/2018)

¶28

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

Nanjai Uthukulli Gramam, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanjai Uthukulli Gramam, 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

Palani Gounder Vs The District Collector

G.Thilagavathi, Vs The State Government of

P.Ramakrishnan Vs The District Collector

I.Selvaraj, S/o.Iyyakkannu Vs The Tashildar

R.Dakshinamurthy Vs State Express Transport

Gaffoor Khan, Vs The District Collector