Disposed

C.Ramasamy v. The Chairman Hill Areas

Madras HC8 Feb 2018WP/410/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 226 challenged inaction regarding forest proposal remarks. The court observed that remarks had already been forwarded by the third respondent. It directed the fourth respondent to forward those remarks to the first respondent within two weeks, allowing the first respondent to pass final orders within eight weeks thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to forward remarks to the 1st respondent within two weeks; 1st respondent to pass final orders within eight weeks thereafter.

C.Ramasamy Vs The Chairman Hill Areas — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 08.02.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

W.P.No.410 of 2018 and WMP.No.464 of 2018 1. C.Ramasamy 2. C.Raju ... Petitioners vs. 1. The Chairman, Hill Area Conservation Authority, cum The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore. 3. The Principal Chief conservator of Forests, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015. 4. The Director of Town & Country Planning, Directorate of Town & Country Planning, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ..Respondents

¶6

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3^rd respondent to forward his remarks on he proposal of the petitioner sent by the Conservator of Forest, Coimbatore dated 28.08.2017 vide his Letter No.Na.Ka.6629/2017/V1 and forward the same to the 4^th respondent to enable him to place it before the 1^st respondent within a time frame.

¶7

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Anbukarasu

¶8

For Respondents : Mr.S.V.Vijay Prashanth,

¶9

Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R3

¶10

Mr.D.Suriyanarayanan, Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R4

¶11

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

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submits that the prayer sought for in this writ petition has already been considered and orders have been passed on 06.02.2018 thereby forwarding the remarks of the 3^rd respondent to the 4^th respondent. He has also produced a copy of the said communication. Therefore, now, the 4^th respondent has to place the said remarks before the 1st respondent, who in turn, has to pass the final order. Therefore, the 4^th respondent is directed to forward the remarks received from the 3^rd respondent to the 1^st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such remarks from the 4^th respondent, the 1^st respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶14

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed
of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Sd/-
Deputy Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
1. The Chairman,Hill Area Conservation Authority,
cum The Principal Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat,Chennai – 600 009.
2. The District Collector,
Coimbatore District,Coimbatore.
3. The Principal Chief conservator of Forests,
Panagal Maligai, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
4. The Director of Town & Country Planning,
Directorate of Town & Country Planning,
Anna Salai,Chennai – 600 002.
+ 1 cc to Special Government Pleader Sr.9914
W.P.No.410 of 2018
(CS-DR)
EU(15/02/2018 )

¶15

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

C.Ramasamy v. The Chairman Hill Areas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ramasamy v. The Chairman Hill Areas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.G.Revathi, Vs The Revenue Divisional

C.P.Senthilkumar Vs The Principal Secretary to

M/s.Sri Ramana Scan Centre Vs The State of Tamil nadu

D.Suresh Vs The Regional Transport Officer

A.Devaraj, S/o.Aadhimoolam Vs The District Collector

Vrishank Magesh Babu, Vs The Secretary to Government