Disposed

Kasirajan v. the District Collector

Madras HC12 Oct 2018WP(MD)/21445/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition filed under Article 226. The court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation regarding illegal sand quarrying within four weeks. The petition was subsequently disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent (District Collector) to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.03.2018 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Kasirajan Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 12.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.[MD]No.21445 of 2018

Kasirajan

: Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai.

¶11

The Sub Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. : Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 26.03.2018 within stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.N.Shanmuga Selvam

¶15

Additional Government Pleader

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 26.03.2018.

¶19

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶20

3.Alleging that illegal sand quarrying is being taken place, a representation has been made by the petitioner to the first respondent dated 26.03.2018, seeking action against the illegal sand quarrying. Since, no response is forthcoming, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner has approached this Court with the present writ petition.

¶21

¶22

4.Taking into consideration the pendency of the writ petition, this Court directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.03.2018 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶23

5.The Writ Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. No costs.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar (CS-I)

¶27

¶28

The District Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. 2. The Sub Collector, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. + 1 CC TO Mr.D.RAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 90403 + 1 CC TO SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN SR No. 90428 MR TE/SV/SAR-1 : 02/11/2018 : 2P/5C

¶29

ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD]No.21445 of 2018 12.10.2018

¶30

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

Kasirajan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasirajan 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

C.Vaiyapuri, Vs the Commissioner

M. Ramu Vs the Superintendent of Police

Ganeshkumar @ Ganesan Vs the Prl. Secretary to Govt.

Rayappan, Vs the Registrar of Cooperative

Kvsa.Mohan, Vs the Tamil Nadu State

Ganesan, Vs the Tamil Nadu State