Disposed

S.Athilakshmi,W/O.Srinivasagam v. the District Collector

Madras HC12 Feb 2018WP(MD)/2800/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this public interest litigation, the petitioner alleged that a road was being laid without milling, increasing height and risking floodwater entry into residences. The court directed an inspection within a week and strict compliance with norms within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to inspect road construction for milling and norm compliance within one week and inform within three weeks.

S.Athilakshmi,W/O.Srinivasagam Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.02.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶3

W.P(MD)No.2800 of 2018

¶4

S.Athilakshmi .. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶7

2.The Block Development Officer, Village Formation Road, Kuruvikulam Panchayat Union, Kuruvikulam – 627 754, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to reduce the height of the Road in Alamanayakkanpatti, A.Karisalkulam Post, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Subbaraj For Respondents : Mr.M.Murugan, Government Advocate

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

By consent, the main writ petition itself, is taken up for final disposal.

¶13

Mr.M.Murugan, learned Government Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents.

¶14

The petitioner claims that she is eking out her livelihood by doing agricultural work and she came forward to file this Writ Petition as a 'Public Interest Litigation', alleging that the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent started laying road in her village and it is on the already 'well laid Thar road', which is also in good condition.

¶15

¶16

The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that without 'Milling' the road, they started putting the gravel and mud on the road and thereby, the height of the road will get increased from that of the residences as well as the drainage located in that locality and in the event of rain or flood, the water will recede into their residences/houses and in this regard, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 26.01.2018, to the respondents and despite the receipt and acknowledgment, no steps have been taken so far and hence, she came forward to file this Writ petition.

¶17

Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents, especially the photographs and would submit that the gravel has been put on the already well formed Thar road and in that event, the height of the road will get increased and in the event of rain or flood, the water will recede into the premises and in that event, the drainage will also get blocked and that, the concerned Contractor is laying the road not taking into consideration the relevant norms, in an urgent manner and therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file this Writ Petition.

¶18

This Court heard the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶19

Though the petitioner prays for a larger relief, this Court, in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without going into the merits of the claim projected by the petitioner either in this Writ Petition or in his representation, directs the second respondent to cause inspection of the new road being laid in Alamanayakkanpatti, A.Karisalkulam Post, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to see that whether before laying the new road, 'Milling' is done or not and so also ensure the compliance of norms of the Indian Road Congress, for laying a road and inform the decision taken, to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks thereafter.

¶20

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶23

/True copy/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

2.The Block Development Officer, Village Formation Road, Kuruvikulam Panchayat Union, Kuruvikulam – 627 754, Thiruvengadam Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.P.SUBBARAJ,Advocate,SR.47883

¶31

W.P(MD)No.2800 of 2018 12.02.2018

¶32

PM KK/SV MMS/SAR 3/20.02.2018/ 3P- 4C/

¶33

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

S.Athilakshmi,W/O.Srinivasagam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Athilakshmi,W/O.Srinivasagam 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

P.Kumaresan Vs the District Collector

G.Ganesan, Vs the District Collector

T.Murugan, Vs the District Collector

Rathinam Vs the District Collector

A.Ranganathan, Vs the District Collector

M. Muthupandi Vs the District Collector