Disposed

G.Thalapathi v. The District Collector

Madras HC3 Feb 2020WP(MD)/26748/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Additional Chief Secretary to consider representations for installing a statue of M.Karunanidhi. The District Collector was directed to forward a report. The writ petition was disposed of without a hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the fourth respondent to consider representations on merits within eight weeks and the first respondent to forward a report.

G.Thalapathi Vs The District Collector — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.26748 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.02.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA W.P.(MD).No.26748 of 2019

¶5

and W.M.P.(MD) No.23075 of 2019

¶6

G.Thalapathi District Secretary of DMK, 2/1 Gopalsamy Nagar, Pasumalai,

¶7

Madurai 625 004

¶8

... Petitioner Vs.

¶9

1. The District Collector,

¶10

Office of the Collectorate, Madurai.

¶11

1. The Commissioner of Police,Madurai.

¶12

1. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation,Madurai.

¶13

The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 ... Respondents

¶14

* R4 impleaded vide Court order dated 03.02.2020

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner for installation of statue of late Thiru M.Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in any one of the places mentioned in the representation of the petitioner dated 3.9.2018 and a reminder letter dated 6.12.2019 forthwith.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Senior Counsel for M/s.Veera Associates

¶17

For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.Aravind Pandian, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi, Special Government Pleader

¶18

¶19

The Writ Petition is filed seeking for a direction to the respondents to grant permission for installation of statue of late Thiru M.Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in any one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

W.P.(MD).No.26748 of 2019

¶21

of the places mentioned in the representation of the petitioner dated 3.9.2018 and a reminder letter dated 6.12.2019 forthwith.

¶22

The petitioner's political party decided to install the statue of Thiru.M.Karunanidhi, who was a former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, at Madurai in any one of the places referred by the petitioner vide his representation dated 03.09.2018 and a reminder representation letter dated 06.09.2019. Even after passage of 15 months time from the date of first representation made by the petitioner, the respondents have not taken any steps to consider the representation of the petitioner. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition seeking to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 3.9.2018 and a reminder letter dated 6.12.2019 forthwith.

¶23

The learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Aravind Pandian, who appeared on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department is the Authority to take a decision in this regard but is not made a party in this writ petition.

¶24

In view of the above submission, the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 is suo moto impleaded as the fourth respondent in the writ petition.

¶25

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and also that of the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the fourth respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 3.9.2018 and 6.12.2019 on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This Court also directs the first respondent to forward the report in this regard to the fourth respondent forthwith, enabling the fourth respondent to take any decision and pass orders.

¶26

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.(MD) No.23075 of 2019 is closed.

¶27

Assistant Registrar ()

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD).No.26748 of 2019

¶32

To:

¶33

The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Madurai. 2) The Commissioner of Police, Madurai. 3) The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. 4) The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 +1 CC to M/s.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-4584[F] dated 04/02/2020 ) Order made in W.P.(MD).No.26748 of 2019 03.02.2020 VB(24.02.2020) 3P 6C

¶34

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

G.Thalapathi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Thalapathi 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

Hema Janani Vs The Regional Passport Authority

M.Sivan Vs the District Collector

A.K.M.Alla Pitchai Vs The commissioner

The Principal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Tvl. Pcs Polyfils P Ltd., Vs the Asst. Commissioner (St)(Fac)

M/s.Sri Aravindar Engineering College Vs The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner