Disposed

Habeeb Educational and Social Services Ltd., v. the Sub Collector

Madras HC19 Mar 2020WP(MD)/5717/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner trust filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a restraint against the fourth respondent (Joint Director, Mines and Minerals) from permitting the fifth respondent to run a sand crusher unit on the petitioner's land. The court observed that notice was issued earlier to consider the petitioner's objections before taking final action and directed the authorities to hear the peti

What did the court decide?

It has been directed that if respondents seek to consider the application, they must put the petitioner on notice and hear objections before granting or refusing permission. No costs.

Habeeb Educational and Social Services Ltd., Vs the Sub… — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.5717 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.03.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶4

W.P.(MD)No.5717 of 2020 and WMP(MD).No.4990 of 2020

¶5

Habeeb Educational and Social Services Trust, Rep. by its Managing Trustee, KMH.Mohammed Habeeb Najjar, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner vs.

¶6

The Sub Collector, Cheranmagadevi Sub Division, Cheranmagadevi, Tirunelveli District.

¶7

The Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.

¶8

The Revenue Inspector, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District.

¶9

The Joint Director, Mines and Minerals, District Collector Complex, Tirunelveli.

¶10

G.T.Lawrence. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents 1 to 4 from granting permission to the 5^th respondent to run Stone Crusher M-sand Unit in S.No.6/1, situated at Pappankulam village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvakumaran

¶13

For Respondent : Mrs.J.Padmavathi Devi,

¶14

Spl. Government Pleader [for R1 to R4]

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.5717 of 2020

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner, Habeeb Educational and Social Services Trust, which is represented by its Managing Trustee, KMH.Mohammed Habeeb Najjar, in Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District has filed the present writ petition in the nature of mandamus seeking a restraint against the 4^th respondent from granting permission to the 5^th respondent G.T.Lawrence, resident of Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District, from running a sand crusher M-sand unit in S.No.6/1, at Pappankulam village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶20

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner trust has extensive lands in Pappankulam village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, measuring about 103 acres. It has been stated that the 5^th respondent G.T.Lawrence had applied for a permission to run sand crusher M-sand unit in S.No.6/1, at Pappankulam village, Nanguneri Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The writ petitioner is very concerned about the same. He has filed the writ petition stating that the petitioner Trust is planning to construct a hospital in the adjacent land of the 5^th respondent for the welfare of the local people. If permission is granted, then naturally the environment will get polluted and this would also cause immense hardship, not only to the petitioner but also, whenever the hospital is built, to the patients who come there seeking treatment. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶21

The learned Special Government Pleader, who had taken notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. R1 to R4 had stated that the 3^rd respondent / Revenue Inspector had examined and inspected the place where the 5^th respondent had sought permission and had given a report. However, the learned Special Government Pleader, very appreciably had called the entire file and drawn attention to the notice on 13.12.2019, wherein, it had been stated that the petitioner herein had raised an objection and therefore, no further action is to be taken, pursuant to the report of the 3^rd respondent. The said statement and the notice in the original file are recorded. It is further directed that if, any of the respondents, seek to consider the application of the 5^th respondent , they must put the petitioner on notice and hear the objections and only thereafter, consider either to grant or to refuse any such permission.

¶22

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

¶23

2/3

¶24

W.P.(MD)No.5717 of 2020

¶25

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (crl.side)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶30

Pkn To 1. The Sub Collector, Cheranmagadevi Sub Division, Cheranmagadevi, Tirunelveli District. 2. The Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. 3. The Revenue Inspector, Nanguneri, Tirunelveli District. 4. The Joint Director, Mines and Minerals, District Collector Complex, Tirunelveli. +1 CC to SPL.GP ( SR-12684[F] dated 20/03/2020 ) +1 CC to Mr.T.SELVAKUMARAN, Advocate ( SR-12623[F] dated 20/03/2020 ) W.P.(MD)No.5717 of 2020 19.03.2020 MK (15.05.2020) 3P 7C

¶31

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

¶32

3/3

Habeeb Educational and Social Services Ltd., v. the Sub Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habeeb Educational and Social Services Ltd., 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

M/S.Ashok Timber Trading Company Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Esakkiammal Vs the District Collector

Jeyaparvathi Vs the Govt of Tamil Nadu

K.Chandrasekaran Vs the Licensing Authority

Kathiravan Vs the Dist. Revenue Officer/

A. Saravanan Vs the Regional Passport Officer