Disposed

Prof.Dr.M.Kuppuswamy, v. The District Collector

Madras HC29 Aug 2018WP/31733/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a direction to consider his representations regarding the illegal extraction and selling of underground water. The Madras High Court directed the respondents to consider the representations, afford an opportunity of hearing, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders on merits within six weeks after affording opportunity of hearing.

Prof.Dr.M.Kuppuswamy, Vs The District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.08.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

W.P.No.31733 of 2017

Prof.Dr.M.Kuppuswamy

... Petitioner

Vs 1. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 2. The Tahsildar, Poonamallee Taluk, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15-09-2017 and 28-10-2017 and to initiate action for prohibiting the illegal extraction and selling of the underground water as detailed in the said representations.

¶10

The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15-09-2017 and 28-10-2017 and to initiate action for prohibiting the illegal extraction and selling of the underground water as detailed in the said representations.

¶11

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted the representations claiming the same relief as prayed in this writ petition, but, the said representations are yet to be disposed of by the respondents. However, the learned counsel submitted that it would suffice, if the representations dated 15-09-2017 and 28-10-2017 made by the petitioner is directed to be considered by the respondents, on merits.

¶12

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

¶13

Mr.J.Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice for the respondents, submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15-09-2017 and 28-10-2017 and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also taking into consideration the limited prayer sought for in the writ petition, this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 15-09-2017 and 28-10-2017 and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as any of the interested parties, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No
costs.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
gsk/bkn
To
1. The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
2. The Tahsildar,
Poonamallee Taluk,
Poonamallee,
Thiruvallur District.
+1 CC to Govt. Pleader sr 59800.
+1 CC to Mr.J. Thilagaraj, Advocate sr 59219.
+1 CC to Mr.J. Thilagaraj, Advocate sr 59219.(17/09/2018)
W.P.No.31733 of 2017
SP(12/09/2018)

¶16

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

Prof.Dr.M.Kuppuswamy, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof.Dr.M.Kuppuswamy, 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

P.Selvam, Vs The District Collector

Walter Fernandes Vs The Inspector General of

K.Ravi, Vs The District Collector

Mr.P.Srinivasan, Vs The Tahsildar

Cogzidel Technologies Pvt.Ltd. Vs The Managing Director

A.Anusha, Vs The Branch Manager