Allowed

Chellasamy v. the District Collector

Madras HC16 Oct 2020WP(MD)/6485/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector and Executive Officer to consider the petitioner's representation regarding permission for the repair and reconstruction of a family temple. The Court fixed a six-week time limit for the order, authorizing the reconstruction and repair works.

What did the court decide?

Directed first and second respondents to consider petitioner's representation dated 12.12.2019 and pass appropriate orders on repair and reconstruction within six weeks.

Chellasamy Vs the District Collector — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P(MD).No.6485 of 2020

¶2

Chellasamy,

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.10.2020 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P(MD).No.6485 of 2020

¶5

Chellasamy, Administrator of Nullivilagam Siva Sudalai Madasamy Family Thirukovil, Nullivilai, Moolachel, Thuckaly Post, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Executive Officer, Vilavoor Town Panchayat, Moolachel, Thuckaly Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶9

3.The Tahsildar, Thuckaly Taluk, Thucklay Post, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first and second respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.12.2019 and pass appropriate order in the issue of planning and permission under Rule 4 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules 1973 for the repair and reconstruction of Arulmigu Moolachel Nullivilagam Siva Sudalai Madasamy and Pathrakaliamman family temple within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramar Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R3

¶12

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

¶13

1/3

¶14

W.P(MD).No.6485 of 2020

¶15

Mr.Sethuraman Standing Counsel for R2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the first and second respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.12.2019 and pass appropriate orders with regard to the issue of planning and permission under Rule 4 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules 1973 for the repair and reconstruction of Arulmigu Moolachel Nullivilagam Siva Sudalai Madasamy and Pathrakaliamman family temple within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

Heard MrV.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.C.Ramar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for R1 and R3 and Mr.Sethuraman, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶19

The petitioner claims that he is the Administrator of Arulmigu Moolachel Nullivilagam Siva Sudalai Madasamy and Pathrakaliamman temple. According to him, it is a family temple and he has given a representation dated 12.12.2019 to the second respondent for the construction of 'Peedam' and for renovation works to be carried out in the said temple. According to him, till date, the said representation has not been considered by the second respondent. On earlier occasion, this Court, by an order dated 05.06.2020 recorded the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent that suitable instructions would be given to the second respondent to forward the applications submitted by the petitioner to the first respondent. However, it is not known as to whether such an instruction was given by the learned Standing Counsel to the second respondent or not. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2019, seeking permission of the second respondent to carry out renovation works at Arulmigu Moolachel Nullivilagam Siva Sudalai Madasamy and Pathrakaliamman family temple, is considered on merits and in accordance with law.

¶20

For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the first and second respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.12.2019 and pass appropriate orders in the issue of planning and permission under Rule 4 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules 1973, to carry out the repair and reconstruction works in Arulmigu Moolachel Nullivilagam Siva Sudalai Madasamy and Pathrakaliamman Family Temple situated at Kalkulam, Kanyakumari District, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

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

¶22

2/3

¶23

W.P(MD).No.6485 of 2020

¶24

5.With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No Costs.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (CO)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

PJL

¶30

Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶31

To 1.The District Collector, District Collector Office, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Tahsildar, Thuckaly Taluk, Thucklay Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-20569[F] dated 19/10/2020 )

¶33

W.P(MD).No.6485 of 2020 16.10.2020

¶34

CO(SE) AP (28.10.2020) 3P 4C

¶35

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

¶36

3/3

Chellasamy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chellasamy 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

Cms Evangelical Suvi David Vs the District Registrar

P.Naresh Ambedkar Vs The Assistant Commissioner

N. Namasivayam Vs the Secretary

P.Thangakalyani, Vs the District Collector

T. Elangovan, M/45 Yrs, Vs the State Information

G. Rengasamy Vs State of Tamil Nadu