Dismissed

Eswari Sundaramoorthi v. the Director General

Madras HC29 Aug 2018WP(MD)/5397/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging an order to stop illegal sand mining. The Court found no error in the respondent's order but directed future compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; direction to second respondent to ensure no illegal activities or unauthorized mining occur in future; liberty to petitioner to make representation.

Eswari Sundaramoorthi Vs the Director General — Corruption | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.08.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR W.P.[MD].No.5397 of 2018 and

¶6

W.M.P.(MD).Nos.5335, 6073 and 7048 of 2018

¶7

Eswari Sundaramoorthi : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Director General, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit, Chennai.

¶10

The District Collector, Madurai District.

¶11

The Superintendent, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit, Madurai.

¶12

4.C.Tirumoorthy : Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertains to the impugned order dated 14.11.2017, passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.217/2017-Kanimam and quash the same as illegal and consequently directs the respondents to conduct proper enquiry and taken appropriate action in accordance with law on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 21.12.2017.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

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

¶16

The petitioner has come forward to file this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 14.11.2017, by which it has been informed that the action was taken against the fourth respondent herein for the illegal usage https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of sand and stone and suitable directions have been given to stop the same in future.

¶17

¶18

The grievance of the petitioner is that the action taken by the second respondent is not sufficient.

¶19

On a perusal of the records, it is seen that a direction

¶20

had already been given by the second respondent to see it that no such activities take place in future. Thus, we do not find any error in the order passed by the second respondent. However, we direct the second respondent to see to it that no such illegal activities shall take place in future, which is inclusive of unauthorized mining operation. The petitioner is also given liberty to make representation before the authority concerned, if there are any illegal activities going on.

¶21

The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶22

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶25

/True Copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶27

¶28

The Director General, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit, Chennai.

¶29

The District Collector,

¶30

Madurai District.

¶31

The Superintendent, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit, Madurai.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.C.Senthil Murugan, Advocate Sr.No.80843 +1cc to Spl.Government Pleader Sr.No.81659

¶33

¶34

VB/SKN/SAR1/24.09.2018/2P/6C

¶35

ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD].No.5397 of 2018 29.08.2018

¶36

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

Eswari Sundaramoorthi v. the Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eswari Sundaramoorthi v. the Director General

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

U.P.Sathaya, Vs the District Collector

P. Saravanan Vs the Superintendent of Police

The Chief Educational Officer Vs B.Srinivasan

T.Vennis, Vs the Election Commissioner

Tamil Selvi Vs the Inspector of Police

Kamaraj, Vs the District Collector