Dismissed

M.Murugesan, v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Feb 2018WP/22098/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Section 14(1) notice under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, as premature since the exercise of power does not inherently violate civil rights, allowing future recourse if substantive rights are infringed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as premature; consequentially, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

M.Murugesan, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.02.2018

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶4

W.P.No.22098 of 2014 and MP.No.1 of 2014

M.Murugesan

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Secretary Highways Department Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶9

2.The Divisional Engineer (Highways) NABARD and Rural Roads Salem – 5. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 06.04.2014 within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Raghavachari For Respondents : Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali Government Advocate ORDER

¶12

The petitioner in this case challenges the notice issued under Section 14(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. It is alleged in the petition that there was an earlier attempt to acquire the petitioner's land, following which the respondent has issued a notice under Section 14(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, which grants the authorities the power to enter upon survey and take measurement and levels of any land or mark such levels, dig or bore into the sub-soil of the land etc., for the purposes connected with the object of the enactment. Apprehending acquisition might be taken, the petitioner has come to this Court with the present petition. It is also alleged inter alia that the respondents has been keep changing the design for the purpose of laying road and this constant change of design is malafide.

¶13

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

¶14

Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, learned Government Advocate enters appearance for the respondents. The second respondent has filed its counter, in which it is explained why the design is being changed.

¶15

3.1 In the course of submission, Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner suspected malafide in the action of the second respondent in changing or altering the course of the proposed road. He also informed the Court that he has required the authorities to part with certain information to ascertain the bonafide of the action, as early as 28.02.2014 Vide Registered Post and the same did not evoke any response.

¶16

3.2. The learned counsel further added that now notice under Section 15(2) of the Act has been issued to the petitioner and to enable him to participate effectively in the enquiry contemplated under Rule 5(2) and 5(3) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Rules 2003, the petitioner seeks some information. Refuting to part with the information which in no way can be termed as "classified information" would be detrimental to the effective opportunity of being heard in the matter that the petitioner is entitled to within the scheme of the enactment, argued the counsel.

¶17

Heard the Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶18

Without going into the merits of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is sufficient to state that exercise of power under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 per se does not involve violation of any of the civil rights of the petitioner and hence the present petition in that context is premature.

¶19

This writ petition is accordingly dismissed as premature. The petitioner, however, is not precluded from approaching this Court or any other forum provided there for in law in the eventuality of any of the substantial rights of the petitioner is infringed by the authorities or any act done by the authorities inconsistent with the provisions of the statute governing it. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

¶23

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

¶24

To:

¶25

1.The Secretary, Highways Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The Divisional Engineer,(Highways) NABARD and Rural Roads, Salem. +1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, S.R.No.9550 W.P.No.22098 of 2014 GJ II(CO) RRK(26/02/2018)

¶26

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

M.Murugesan, v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Murugesan, v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

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

K.R.Thangaraj Vs The Government of Tamilnadu

S.Ilavarasu Vs The District Collector cum

Shanthakumar, Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M. Rajarathnam Vs The District Collector

P.Jayaraman, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs The Deputy Collector (Revenue)