Petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 directing respondents to remove an encroachment from a public road. During hearing, it was submitted by both sides that the encroachment had already been removed. Consequently, the petition was closed as infructuous with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.08.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.(MD) No.11698 of 2018 and WMP(MD)No.12010 of 2018
R.Meenaloksani
... Petitioner
vs.
1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
2.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli.
3.The Assistant Commissioner, Palayamkottai Zone, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli.
... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider Petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2018 and remove the encroachment made in the public road lying in front of the Shop No.2, Ayyanar Complex in Kanaganadha Nayanar Street at Samathanapuram, Palayamkottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For R1 : Mr.C.Ramar Additional Government Pleader For R2 & R3 : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.]
This writ petition was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2018, seeking removal of encroachment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ made in the public road lying in front of Shop No.2, Ayyanar Complex in Kanaganadha Nayanar Street at Samathanapuram, Palayamkottai.
2
2.After notice, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 fairly submitted that the prayer in the Writ Petition has become infructuous, since the encroachment in question has already been removed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also fairly agreed that the encroachment in question has already been removed.
4.Since the prayer sought for in the present petition has been complied with, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs. Consequently, WMP(MD)No.12010 of 2018 is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Crl.side)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
To:
1.The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2.The Commissioner,
Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli.
3.The Assistant Commissioner,
Palayamkottai Zone, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation, Tirunelveli.
+1CC to Mr.H.Arumugam, Advocate, SR.No.78341
W.P.(MD) No.11698 of 2018 10.08.2018
MJ
ES/SKN/RSK/SAR 4/03.09.2018/2P/6C
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus petition seeking removal of an encroachment from a public road is maintainable when the encroachment has already been removed.
R.Meenaloksani
District Collector, Tirunelveli District
Commissioner, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation
Assistant Commissioner, Palayamkottai Zone
T.RAJA
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
