Allowed

S.Karuppiah v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC7 Feb 2018WP(MD)/2425/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL involves the maintenance of Swami Vivekananda Memorial Hall. The Court, without adjudicating merits, directed the Tourism Development Officer to take appropriate action based on a 2012 inspection report by the District Collector in consultation with Math administrators within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the fourth respondent to act on the third respondent's 2012 inspection report in consultation with the fifth respondent to maintain the Memorial Hall within four weeks.

S.Karuppiah Vs the Secretary to… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.02.2018 CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA W.P(MD)No.2425 of 2018

¶6

S.Karuppiah ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Tourism and Development, St, George Fort, Chennai.

¶7

The Commissioner, Tamilnadu Tourism Department, No.2, Walajah Road, Chennai.

¶8

The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram.

¶9

The Tourism Development Officer, Ministry of Tourism, Ramnad Region, Rameshwaram.

¶10

The Administrator, Ramakrishna Math, West car Street, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate and necessary action to maintain and restore the Swami Vivekandha Memorial Hall, at Kunthukalm, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District, to its proper shape and spirit as it was at the time of its inauguration and further direct the third respondent No.3 to monitor the fifth respondent in maintaining the same. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gururaj For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, Additional Government Pleader.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J. ) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

¶15

2.Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Additional Government pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

3.This Writ Petition is styled as a 'Public Interest Litigation' and the petitioner would aver among other things that he is a retired Inspector of Police belonging to the Tamil Nadu Police Department. According to him, Swami Vivekanandha Memorial Hall at Kunthukal, Rameshwaram is not maintained properly. The petitioner would further aver that the third respondent also caused inspection on 16.06.2012 of the tourist spots in Pamban Bridge as well as in Rameshwaram and also visited Swamy Vivekanadha Memorial Hall and given certain instructions, dated 24.06.2012 in Na.Ka.No.64 of 2012 and though nearly six months had elapsed, no steps have been taken to maintain the said Memorial Hall in a proper and hygienic condition.

¶17

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the tourists, who are coming from all over the India, visit Pamban Bridge as well as Rameshwaram, but on account of appalling condition, not visited the said Memorial Hall. Though, in this regard, a representation was submitted to the Honourable Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and a copy of the same has also been marked to the respondents 3 and 4 and inspite of receipt and acknowledgement, no action has been taken so far and hence, the petitioner came forward to file this present Writ Petition.

¶18

5.This Court has considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶19

6.This Court, taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner, directs the fourth respondent to act on the inspection report of the third respondent, dated 24.06.2012 in Na.Ka.No.64 of 2012 in consultation with the fifth respondent, take appropriate action to maintain the said Memorial Hall, in a good and hygienic manner and inform the decision, taken to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

7.The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

¶28

The Secretary to Government, Department of Tourism and Development, St, George Fort, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner, Tamilnadu Tourism Department, No.2, Walajah Road, Chennai. 3. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 4. The Tourism Development Officer, Ministry of Tourism, Ramnad Region, Rameshwaram. 5. The Administrator, Ramakrishna Math, West car Street, Rameshwaram, Ramanathapuram District. +1cc to Mr.M.Gururaj, Advocate Sr.No.46966 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.47270 PS/VSG VB/SV/MMS/SAR3/16.02.2018/3P/8C

¶29

W.P(MD)No.2425 of 2018 07.02.2018

¶30

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

S.Karuppiah v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Karuppiah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Member Secretary Vs Muthuraman

Chokkar Vs the Supperintendent of Police

The Managing Director Vs S.Sahul Hameed

The Chairman, Vs S.Hema Latha

K.K.Ramesh, Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Dheivam, Vs the District Collector