Disposed

R.Kandasamy v. The District Collector

Madras HC14 Aug 2020WP(MD)/8089/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged waste dumping and incineration by the Corporation causing health issues. Noting subsequent remediation and installation of warning boards, Court disposed petition granting liberty to return if situation recurs.

What did the court decide?

Court directed the second respondent to ensure the remedied situation continues and granted liberty to move for appropriate relief if the situation changes.

R.Kandasamy Vs The District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(MD)Nos.8089 of 2020

¶2

R.Kandasamy

¶3

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.08.2020 CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD) No.8089 of 2020 and WMP(MD) No.7515 of 2020

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

¶7

1.The District Collector,

¶8

Tirunelveli District.

¶9

2.The Commissioner,

¶10

Tirunelveli Corporation,

¶11

Tirunelveli.

¶12

3.The District Environmental Engineer,

¶13

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.30/2, Sitco Small Scale Industrial Campus,

¶14

Pettai, Tirunelveli-10.

¶15

4.The Deputy Director of Public Health & Services, Tirunelveli District. ..Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the second respondent from dumping waste and set on fire in Plot No.125, N.H.Colony, 1^st Street main Road, Perumalpuram, Tirunelveli -7. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumar For Respondents : For R1 & R4 - Mr.M.Rajarajan, Government Advocate For R2 – Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar,AGP For R3 – Mr.Vasanthakumar

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent Corporation.

¶19

2.The grievance of the petitioner is that adjacent to his house, in a vacant site that belongs to a private party, the Corporation has dumped waste and also incinerated the same. As a result of which, the petitioner is facing health issues. For forbearing the respondent from doing so, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

¶20

It is informed the Court that after Writ Petition was filed, the second respondent has set right and cleaned the entire https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/4

¶22

W.P.(MD)Nos.8089 of 2020

¶23

place. A Board stating that waste should not be dumped in the said site has also been installed. These developments are recorded.

¶24

4.The second respondent is directed to ensure that the situation as now remedied continues. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move this Court for appropriate relief, if the situation changes.

¶25

Recording the subsequent development and granting the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar (Crl Side)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

vrn

¶31

Note :

¶32

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.

¶33

¶34

1.The District Collector, Tirunelveli District.

¶35

2.The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli.

¶36

3.The District Environmental Engineer,

¶37

Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, No.30/2, Sitco Small Scale Industrial Campus, Pettai, Tirunelveli-10.

¶38

4.The Deputy Director of Public Health & Services, Tirunelveli District.

¶39

+1 CC to M/s.GP ( SR-14217[F] dated 17/08/2020 )

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.8089 of 2020 and WMP(MD) No.7515 of 2020 14.08.2020

¶41

KK(25.08.2020) 2 P 6C https://h cservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶42

2/4

R.Kandasamy v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kandasamy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl Sri Meenakshi Bikes Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

S Rajesh Mahadevan Vs the Insurance Ombudsman

K.Boopathy Karthick Vs the District Collector

T.Vasantha Vs the Regional Transport Authority

S.T.Rajan Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Thanga Velu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer