Dismissed

Dhanushkodiyin Purviga v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Feb 2018WP(MD)/1711/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a PIL filed by a society seeking a mandamus to construct a water tank, priest shelter, and a scheme permitting street vending at Arichalmunai, Dhanushkodi. The Court rejected the profit motive for vending due to the area's ecological sensitivity but directed the 1st and 4th respondents to maintain basic amenities for tourists.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to maintain basic amenities; plea for stopping business activities rejected; plea for vending scheme rejected.

Dhanushkodiyin Purviga Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.02.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

W.P(MD)No.1711 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)No.1825 of 2018

¶6

Dhanushkodiyin Purviga Yathirai Paniyalargal Sangam, represented by its President, P.Chellathurai. ...

¶7

... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Ramanathapuram – 623 503.

¶9

2.The Tahsildar, Rameswaram Taluk, Rameswaram.

¶10

3.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶11

4.The Rameswaram 3^rd grade Municipality, represented by its Commissioner,

¶12

Rameswaram, Ramanathapuram District.

¶13

5.The Inspector of Police, Dhanushkodi Police Station, Dhanushkodi, Ramanathapuram.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to construct the water tank, shelter for the priest and consequently frame a scheme to permit at least 62 shops to eke the livelihood by street vending at arichal munai, Dhanushkodi, Ramanathapuram District within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil

¶17

For Respondents

¶18

: Mr.C.M.Marichelliah Prabhu Additional Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3

¶19

: Mr.M.Kannan

¶20

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

¶21

for R.4

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J.)

¶25

The petitioner claims to be the President of the Dhanushkodiyin Purviga Yathirai Paniyalargal Sangam, which is a registered society came to be in the year 2015 established for the welfare of the pilgrims and has filed this writ petition styled as Public Interest Litigation wherein he spoke about the traces about the history of Danushkodi and also the cyclone of the year 1964 which wiped out the town of Danushkodi and thereby became haunted place.

¶26

The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that though he submitted a representation dated 04.10.2017 and 20.01.208 to construct water tank shelter for the priest and consequently frame a scheme to permit atleast 62 shops to eke out livelihood by street vending business at Arichalmunai, Danushkodi, Ramanathapuram, the said representations failed to invoke any kind of response and hence, the petitioner came forward to file this writ petition.

¶27

Mr.M.Mahaboob Fazil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would submit that since the Central Government recently opened a road upto Arichalmunai and most of the people, who are coming to Rameshwaram for worshipping or performing the last rights, used to visit the said place also and it is without even basic facilities and no shops are also in the vicinity and as a consequence, the tourists and other people, who visited the said place are put to extreme hardship and sufferings and hence, prays for appropriate orders to provide basic amenities and also to formulate a scheme to do street vending business.

¶28

This Court heard the Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and the learned Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, who would submit that due to the effort of the Central Government, a quality road has been laid and so that the people can reach upto Arichalmunai and enjoy the surroundings and if any street vending business is allowed to be conducted, it may affect the beauty and serenity of the said place. Insofar as the provisions of basic amenities is concerned, in order to reach Mukuntharayar Sathiram, provisions have been made for basic amenities and would further add that the tourists or travelling people used to carry water and other food articles and as such, it cannot be said that they are put to hardship and sufferings and further pointed out that Rameshwaram Municipality has also put a warning board near Arichalmunai saying that bathing is also prohibited.

¶29

This Court heard the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

¶31

As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent that Arichalmunai is one of the unique places blended with beauty and serenity. The petitioner association, as a matter of right, cannot insist for formulation of a scheme to do street vending business. The petitioner appears under the guise of filing this Public Interest Litigation, is mainly interested in doing hawking business and if he is permitted to do the same, it would spoil the beauty of the said place. The said area is also ecologically sensitive and it also falls under the Coastal Regional Zone and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it should be maintained as it is and no business activities shall be permitted.

¶32

The petitioner also prays for provision of basic amenities and the first and fourth respondents shall see to that the basic amenities are provided to the tourists and ensure that it continues to be maintained in the same manner.

¶33

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Assistant Registrar(CSII) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶36

¶37

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Ramanathapuram – 623 503.

¶38

2.The Tahsildar, Rameswaram Taluk, Rameswaram.

¶39

3.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶40

+One cc to Mr.M.Kannan, Advocate, SR.No.50925 ssl RL/5C/3P/SV/MMS/SAR4/12/3/2018

¶41

W.P(MD)No.1711 of 2018

¶42

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

¶43

23.02.2018

Dhanushkodiyin Purviga v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanushkodiyin Purviga 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

J.Brinso Raymond, S/O.Julius, Vs the District Collector

B.Ramkumar Adityan, Vs Government of Tamilnadu

Palanikumar, Vs the State , Rep.by the

Muthuraj Vs the Superintendent of Police

Pommi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

R.Paramasivam Vs the Superintendent of Police