Allowed

L.M. Manikandan, v. the Sub Collector

Madras HC3 Apr 2019WP(MD)/6726/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ for permission to operate amusement rides in Vaigai River for Chitirai Festival. Court quashed rejection order regarding safety and site location, permitted event subject to 1Lakh donation undertaking and necessary NOCs, allowing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Quashed rejection order; permitted installation and operation of amusement rides in Vaigai River from 16.04.2019 to 23.04.2019 subject to undertaking and clearances.

L.M. Manikandan, Vs the Sub Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.6726 of 2019

¶5

L.M.Manikandan ... Petitioner

¶6

¶7

1.The Sub-Collector, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶8

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶9

3.The District Fire and Rescue Officer, Ramanathapuram.

¶10

4.The Commissioner, Paramakudi Municipality, Ramanathapuram District.

¶11

5.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department(WRO), Vaigai Basin Division, Paramakudi.

¶12

6.Arulmigu Sundararaja Perumal Temple, Paramakudi. ... Respondents

¶13

(R6 is suo motu impleaded vide order date 03.04.2019)

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to install and operate amusement rides in River Vaigai for Chitirai Festival, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District between 16.04.2019 and 23.04.2019.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan

¶16

For R1 to 3 & R5 : Mr.M.Karuppasamy Government Advocate For R4 : Mr.M.Kannan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For R6 : Mr.P.Jessi Jeeva Priya

¶17

ORDER

¶18

¶19

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶20

This Court suo motu impleads the trustees of Arulmigu Sundararaja Perumal Temple, Paramakudi.

¶21

The petitioner has been conducting amusement rides and other entertainment events in connection with 'Chiththirai festival' of “Arulmigu Sundararaja Perumal Temple” in Paramakudi. The writ petitioner used to erect the amusement rides in Vaigai River Bed. This has been going on for almost ten years. In the typed set of papers the petitioner has enclosed proceedings issued by the Police Department and Fire and Rescue Department etc. But, this year he had encountered certain difficulties. Therefore, this writ petition came to be filed for directing the official respondent to permit the petitioner to instal and operate the amusement rides.

¶22

This Court ordered notice to the respondents on 21.03.2019. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate served a copy of the rejection order dated 11.03.2019. The concerned officials are present in person before me and they stated that the order dated 11.03.2019 rejecting the petitioner's application dated 07.03.2019 was despatched through ordinary post. The petitioner would firmly state that he did not receive the same.

¶23

Since the rejection order was produced only during the course of proceedings, I can mould the relief sought for in the writ petition. The rejection order gives two reasons. The first reason is that the site on which the rides are to be installed is the river bed. But it is a fact that the petitioner has been conducting such rides only on river beds year after year. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that in Manamadurai, such events are being conducted. In any event, permitting the petitioner to host such event in river bed is not going to cause any damage to the river bed. Therefore, the first ground has to be necessarily interfered with.

¶24

The second ground is that there is a possibility of endangering human safety. The authority would state that flash flood can occur at any moment. I am not again impressed with this submission. The event is to be conducted only at Paramakudi. A possibility of flood would arise only when water is released from the Vaigai dam. The Vaigai dam is at a distance of almost 120 km from Paramakudi. Normally dam water does not reach Paramakudi. Even if it reaches, it will take time. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the authority appears to be too farfetched. Therefore, the order bearing letter No. tg/,tm.1/15/Nfh.3(1)/2019 dated 11.03.2019 issued by the fifth respondent herein, is quashed.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner undertakes to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of Arulmigu Sundararaja Perumal Temple and Rs.50,000/- to the Public Works Department (Water Resource Organization).

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8. The event is to be held from 16.04.2019 till 23.04.2019. The petitioner, of course, has to get clearance from other

¶27

¶28

authorities. Subject to the petitioner getting No Objection Certificate from the respondents 2, 3 and 4, the petitioner is permitted to install and operate amusement rides in river Vaigai for Chitirai festival.

¶29

This Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the temple states that during the last year the petitioner did not pay the electricity charges. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that they would use only genset. If they drawing any temporary connection they would directly settle the dues with TANGEDCO.

¶31

¶32

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( T AND P ) TRUE COPY

¶33

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( CS II )

¶34

rmk To 1.The Sub-Collector, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3.The District Fire and Rescue Officer, Ramanathapuram. 4.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department(WRO), Vaigai Basin Division, Paramakudi. 1CC TO MR. R.M. ARUN SWAMINATHAN, ADVOCATE SR 58736 1CC TO M/S. P. JESSI JEVA PRIYA, ADVOCATE SR 58739 KK 4/4/2019 3P 7C

¶35

W.P.(MD)No.6726 of 2019

¶36

03.04.2019

¶37

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

L.M. Manikandan, v. the Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.M. Manikandan, v. the Sub 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

A.Issac Arul, Vs the District Collector

R.Baluchamy, S/O.Raju, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Village Drinking Water and health Society Vs the Districtcollector

Guruviah.K Vs the Secretary

The Principal Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Vs K.Selvaraj