Disposed

Dr.Anantharaj v. The District Collector

Madras HC15 Oct 2020WP/14784/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition styled as PIL, the petitioner alleged illegal excavation in a water body and unauthorized structures. The Court examined rival submissions and directed the 3rd respondent to respond to the representations and communicate the decision within four weeks before disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

2nd respondent to respond to representations within four weeks and communicate the decision.

Dr.Anantharaj Vs The District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 15.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

WP.No.14784/2020

Dr.Anantharaj

.. Petitioner

Versus

1.The District Collector Cuddalore, Cuddalore District 607 001.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District 606 001.

¶12

3.The Tasildar Vridhachalam

¶13

Cuddalore District 606 001. .. Respondents

¶14

Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to dispose the petitioner representation dated 26.07.2020.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramamoorthy

¶16

For RR 1 to 3 : Mr.S.Kamalesh Kannan Government Advocate

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(1)By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal and is disposed of by this order.

¶19

(2)Mr.S.Kamalesh Kannan, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.

¶20

(3)The petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in the services of a Private Engineering College and also claims to be the State Advisor of Kudimakkal Oozhal Ethirppu Padai in Makkal Paathai and he came forward to file this writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation, expressing some grievance on behalf of the general public and residents of Kizhakiruppu Village, Vridhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶21

(4)The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to various representations and would

¶22

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

¶23

submit that some rowdy elements, without taking note of the public interest, had demolished a water tank and an illegal bore well has also been put up far away from the residential area and that apart, attempts have been made to demolish the bus stop. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the water body known as ''Kurinjan Kuttai'', illegal excavation of earth/sand is also taking place and repeated representations submitted in this regard did not invoke any kind of response and therefore, he is constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation.

¶24

(5) Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 on instructions would submit that insofar as the allegation pertains to the alleged illegal excavation of earth/sand from the water body viz., ''Kurinjan Kuttai'', is concerned, it is being deepened to augment/store more water anticipating heavy rains in the Monsoon and the excavated earth/sand is used to strengthen the bund. Insofar as the allegation pertains to attempts being made to demolish the bus stop is concerned, there is no such proposal in place and insofar as the removal of the water tank is concerned, it has been erected on a Government land without any authorisation/permission and therefore, it has been removed and response to the petitioner's representation would be sent by the 3^rd respondent within the stipulated time frame.

¶25

(6)This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶26

(7)This Court, taking into consideration, the above facts and circumstances, especially the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3, on instructions, directs the 3^rd respondent to respond to the representations submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision taken, to the petitioner.

¶27

(8)The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶28

//True Copy//

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶30

¶31

¶32

1.The District Collector

¶33

Cuddalore, Cuddalore District 607 001.

¶34

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

¶35

Page numbers

¶36

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District 606 001.

¶37

3.The Tasildar Vridhachalam

¶38

Cuddalore District 606 001.

¶39

WP.No.14784/2020

¶40

NMI(CO) CB(10/11/2020)

¶41

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

Dr.Anantharaj v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Anantharaj 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

R.S.Kandhaswamy Vs S.Prabakaran

Mr.E.R.S.Mohan Vs The District Collector

S.Kannan Vs The District Collector

Manmohan Singh Jain, Vs The Authorized Officer

R.Malarkodi Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

P.Shanmugam Vs The District Collector