Dismissed

K. Kamalakannan v. the Superintendent Engineer

Madras HC4 Jul 2019WP/37073/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging objections to the erection of a wind mill. The Court held that since the petitioners had already approached the civil forum regarding the same subject matter, the Writ Petition was unsustainable and thus dismissed without passing any substantive order.

What did the court decide?

No order passed; liberty granted to work out remedy in civil forum.

K. Kamalakannan Vs the Superintendent Engineer — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.07.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P. 37073 of 2007

¶6

and M.P.1 of 2007

¶7

K.Kamalakkannan
2. R.M.Jeyamurugan
3. M.Nalla Perumal ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Superintendent Engineer,
Tatabad,
Coimbatore.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Wind Mill Energy Department Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
No.15, 15-A, Kumaralingam Road,
Udumalpet-642 154.
Coimbatore Dt. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the application of the petitioners dated 14.11.2007.

¶9

For Petitioner : Ms.P.T.Ramadevi

¶10

For Respondents: Mr.P.R.Dilipkumar,

¶11

Standing Counsel for T.N.E.B. for R2

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the application of the petitioners dated 14.11.2007.

¶14

Ms.P.T.Ramadevi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition before this Court for considering their objections dated 14.11.2007 objecting for erection of wind mill, besides, the petitioners have also filed a suit in O.S.No.376 of 2007

¶15

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

¶16

against one M/s.Shubh Realty (South) Pvt. Ltd. for irrigation of the wind mill adjacent to the petitioners' land. However, the prayer sought in the Writ Petition and in the suit are similar in nature. Hence, she prayed to pass appropriate orders.

¶17

In view of the above, once the petitioners have approached the civil forum, the filing of Writ Petition before this Court is unsustainable one. Hence, I am not inclined to pass any order in the Writ Petition. However, the liberty is granted to the petitioners to work out their remedy in the manner known to law. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpp
To
1. The Superintendent Engineer,
Tatabad,
Coimbatore.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Wind Mill Energy Department Circle,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
No.15, 15-A, Kumaralingam Road,
Udumalpet-642 154.
Coimbatore Dt.

¶19

+1cc to Mr.P.T.Ramadevi, Advocate, S.R.No. 56185 W.P. 37073 of 2007 and M.P. 1 of 2007 JP(CO) GN(06/08/2019)

¶20

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

K. Kamalakannan v. the Superintendent Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Kamalakannan v. the Superintendent Engineer

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

G.Adaikkalasamy Vs C.M.D.A.

M.G.Raja Vs Tneb., Rep by Its Chairman

M.Duraisamy Chettiar, Vs the Superintending Engineer

G.Govindan Vs the Inspector of Poolice

Sri Annamalaiyar Teacher Vs the Director of Teacher

Mrs. Ferdouz Farooq Vs the Superintending Engineer