Dismissed

D.Arikrishnaperumal, v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC5 Mar 2018WP(MD)/13996/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court, upon considering a status report confirming proper de-silting of the Pattukulam tank and a submission by the Special Government Pleader regarding acceptance of de-silted sand by agriculturists, held that no further orders were necessary and closed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed; no costs were awarded.

D.Arikrishnaperumal, Vs the Secretary to Government — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

W.P(MD)No.13996 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.10398 of 2016

¶7

D.Arikrishnaperumal : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶10

The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, At Nagercoil. 3. The Executive Engineer, The Public Works Department, Water Resources, Kothaiyur Division, Kanyakumari District. 4. Iyyappan : Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action on the fourth respondent and prevent the illicit mining carried out at Pattukulam comprised in Survey No.296/2C Leepuram Village, Kanyakumari District and make arrangement for the free flow of water into the said tank by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 29.07.2016.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh For Respondents 1 to 3: Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian Special Government Pleader https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Respondent No.4 : No appearance

ORDER

**************

[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.]

¶17

The writ petition is styled as a “Public Interest Litigation”, wherein the petitioner alleges that the second respondent vide proceedings dated 12.07.2016 in Na.Ka.No.109/Pu.Ma.Su/2016, permitted the fourth respondent to de-silt the tank namely “Pattukulam” comprised in Survey No.296/2C of Leepuram village.

¶18

2.According to the petitioner, permission was accorded to remove only 10,000/- units of sand from the said tank by way of de-silting. But, the third respondent over and above the said condition has illegally quarried the sand under the guise of de-silting it and also disposed of it at a hefty price and thereby, the revenue to the Government is also lost. The petitioner in this regard has also submitted a representation dated 29.07.2016, to the respondents and despite receipt and acknowledgement, no response is forthcoming and hence, came forward to file this writ petition.

¶19

3.The writ petition came up for admission on 22.01.2018 and this Court taking note of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, directed the respondents to file a status report as to the compliance of the proceedings dated 12.07.2016 of the second respondent. Accordingly, the second respondent has filed the status report dated 15.02.2018 and it would disclose that the Earth has been removed from the elevated portions only and no damage has been caused to the sluices, surplus outlets, bunds as well as to the existing masonry works of the tank and as a consequence of de-silting, water storage of the tank has been increased and area of 14.16.0 hects. of surrounding agricultural lands are getting benefited and free flow of water is also ensured and there is 90% water storage and there is no illicit quarrying and no hindrance has been caused to the free flow of inlet water into the tank.

¶20

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the sand removed by way of de-silting has been disposed of by the fourth respondent and therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the State to ensure and that the State revenue should also reach their coffers and would further add that the water course should be maintained free of any encroachments, growth of exotic weeds should also be prevented and timely inspection should also be made.

¶21

5.Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents has invited the attention of this Court to the status report as well as the photographs and would submit that on account of de-silting, free flow of water is ensured and periodical monitoring will be done to ensure the free flow of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ water at “Pattukulam” and growth of exotic weeds found if any, would also be removed forthwith in a scientific manner and the said

¶22

¶23

submission on instructions is placed on record. It is also the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader whenever sand is removed by way of de-silting, it has been offered free to the agriculturists and the official respondents shall also ensure transparency method of disposal of the de-silted sand.

¶24

6.This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶25

7.In the light of the status report of the second respondent dated 15.02.2018, coupled with the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, on instructions, to maintain the water course of the said tank free of encroachments and also free of exotic weeds, and that the desilted sand will also be disposed of by adopting fair and transparent methods, this Court is of the considered view that no further orders is necessary in this writ petition.

¶26

8.In the result, the writ petition stands closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

¶32

The Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶33

The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, At Nagercoil.

¶34

The Executive Engineer, The Public Works Department, Water Resources, Kothaiyur Division, Kanyakumari District.

¶35

- 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 53310

¶36

- 1 CC TO Mr.S.C.HEROLD SINGH, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 52832

¶37

¶38

TE/KKR/SAR-1 : 22/03/2018 : 3P/6C

¶39

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

¶40

W.P(MD)No.13996 of 2016 and W.M.P.(MD)No.10398 of 2016 05.03.2018

D.Arikrishnaperumal, v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Arikrishnaperumal, v. the Secretary to Government

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

V.Raman, Vs the Superintende of Police

Sankaranarayanan Vs the Director of Vigilance &

Subramani, S/O. Raja Pillai, Vs the District Collector

Shanmugavel, Vs the Superintendent of Police

T.Arumugam, Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.N.Tamilarasan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu