Dismissed

Nithya v. The State of TamilNadu

Madras HC17 Sept 2019WP/27216/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the non-upgradation of a skating rink to SDAT standards, seeking a directive to upgrade the facility before collecting fees. The court dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage, holding that without specific public grievances, the petition was not maintainable, though it allowed the petitioners to submit a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed at the admission stage; petitioners permitted to submit a fresh representation for consideration by authorities.

Nithya Vs The State of TamilNadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 17.09.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶7

WP.No.27216/2019 & WMP.Nos.26618/2019

¶8

1.Nithya
2.Murugammal
3.R.Hariharan
4.Karthik.B
5.Karthik.V.V.
6.R.Nalini .. Petitioners
Versus
1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its
Secretary, Municipal Administration
and Water Supply Department
Secretariat, Fort St George
Chennai 600 009.

¶9

2.The Greater Chennai Corporation of Chennai, rep.by its Special Officer and Commissioner, Ripon Buildings No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai Park Town, Chennai 600 003. 3.The Special Officer Standing Committee and Council Ripon Buildings No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai Park Town, Chennai 600 003. 4.The Superintending Engineer Park and Playfield Department Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Buildings No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai Park Town, Chennai 600 003. 5.The Zonal Officer Zonal Office-11, 33, Arcot Road Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

6.Smt.M.Mullaimalar Contractor NO.36, Arunachalam Road Saligramam, Chennai-93. .. Respondents

¶13

Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to lay the skating rink court as per the SDAT norms as stipulated in Clause 3 of the Work Order dated 25.02.2019 and referred to in the letter dated 25.02.2019 written by the 4^th respondent to the 5^th respondent in respect of the skating rink court situates at Zone No.11, Division No.151, Located in TCG Park, Porur, before collecting fees for usage of the skating court as stated in clause 7 of the work order dated 25.02.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Thiagarajan ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]

¶15

(1)The petitioners claim to be the public interest litigants and in the form of various representations, they expressed their grievance that the maintenance of Skating area/Skating Rink Court in DCG Park, Ward No.151, Zone-11, have been granted under the Revenue Sharing basis in favour of the 6^th respondent and as per condition No.3, after the allotment order and within 90 days, the Skating Rink Court shall be elevated to SDAT standard and that there should be free usage without any charge or levy.

¶16

(2)The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the communication of the 4^th respondent dated 25.02.2019 in A.Tu.Na.Ka.No.A3/1044-4/2018 addressed to the 5^th respondent wherein conditions of allotment have been given and it is the specific case of the petitioners that condition No.3 with regard to maintenance of Skating Rink Court have been upgraded to SDAT standard. However, a perusal of the representations submitted in this regard would disclose that the general public of Ward No.151 did not express any grievance as to the violation of condition No.3 of the Work Order dated 25.02.2019 granted in favour of the 6^th respondent.

¶17

(3)At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would pray that the petitioners may be permitted to submit a fresh representation to the concerned official respondents for upgrading the Skating Rink Court as per the SDAT standard.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

(4)This Cour has considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶21

(5)Admittedly, in the representations submitted, the representees did not make any specific grievance as to the alleged non upgradation of Skating Rink Court to SDAT standard and as such, this Court is of the considered view that a writ of mandamus in the present form, is not maintainable. However, taking into consideration the plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is open to the petitioners to submit a representation in this regard if they are so advised and if it is open to them under law, to the concerned official respondents, who upon receipt of the same,shall accord priority and dispose of the said representation as expeditiously as possible and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioners.

¶22

(6)The writ petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself, subject to the above observation. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶24

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

AP To 1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Secretariat, Fort St George Chennai 600 009. 2.The Special Officer and Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation of Chennai, Ripon Buildings No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai Park Town, Chennai 600 003. 3.The Special Officer Standing Committee and Council Ripon Buildings No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

4.The Superintending Engineer Park and Playfield Department Greater Chennai Corporation Ripon Buildings No.1131, EVR Periyar Salai Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

¶29

5.The Zonal Officer Zonal Office-11, 33, Arcot Road Valasaravakkam, Chennai 600 087.

¶30

+1cc to Mr.K.Soundararajan, Advocate SR.79964 +1cc to the Government Pleader SR.80240

¶31

WP.No.27216/2019
RSV(CO)
CB(29/11/2019)

¶32

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

¶33

Nithya v. The State of TamilNadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithya v. The State of TamilNadu

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

S.Muthukumar Vs The Chief Secretary

V.Raja Manikandan Vs The District Collector

Rajaravindran, Vs The District Collector

G.Kaliyamoorthy Vs The Director Agriculture

Chinta Venkateswarlu Vs The Regional Administrative Officer

S.Muralidharan Vs Pricipal Chief Conservator