Allowed

R.M.Veerappa Chettiar v. the District Collector

Madras HC24 Aug 2020WP(MD)/9812/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking mandamus to direct the Superintending Engineer to repair a leaking Cauvery Joint Water Scheme Pipeline adjacent to a temple, ordering immediate action to prevent water wastage and damage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to take necessary action and repair the leaking water pipeline immediately without delay.

R.M.Veerappa Chettiar Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

1 W.P.(MD)No.9812 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.08.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.9812 of 2020

¶6

R.M.Veerappa Chettiar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶9

2.The Superintending Engineer, O/o. the Superintending Engineer, (Maintenance) Ramnad Circle, TWAD Board, Municipal Building, Sivagangai.

¶10

3.The Tahsildar, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to take necessary action in repairing the leakage of Cauvery Joint Water Scheme Pipeline located adjacent to Arulmigu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Pattamangalam, Sivagangai District, on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner on 12.06.2020 within the time frame fixed by this Court.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan 1&3 Additional Government Pleader For Respondent 2 : Mrs.Porkodi Karnan

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶15

2.The petitioner's counsel states that the pipe lines maintained by the respondent board had developed leakage and as a result, not only there is a huge wastage of water but also the petitioner's temple is also being swamped by the outflow. He therefore wants the second respondent to carry out the necessary repairs. In this regard, the petitioner has given a representation dated 12.06.2020. Since it has not been considered, the writ petition came to be filed.

¶16

3.I am of the view that the petitioner's request cannot be objected to. Therefore, the respondents, particularly, the second respondent is directed to take necessary action and repair the defects pointed out by the petitioner herein, so that, there is no leakage of water, thereby affecting the petitioner's temple. This https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/2

¶18

2 W.P.(MD)No.9812 of 2020

¶19

repair work shall be carried out immediately and without any delay, if not already carried out.

¶20

4.The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.

¶21

Assistant Registrar (Records)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

rmi

¶25

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.

¶26

To:

¶27

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.

¶28

2.The Superintending Engineer, O/o. the Superintending Engineer, (Maintenance) Ramnad Circle, TWAD Board, Municipal Building, Sivagangai.

¶29

3.The Tahsildar, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

¶30

+1 CC to M/s.PORKODI KARNAN, Advocate ( SR-14930[F] dated 25/08/2020 )

¶31

+1 CC to M/s.Special Government Pleader ( SR-14900[F] dated 25/08/2020 )

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.9812 of 2020 24.08.2020

¶33

KB(27.08.2020) 2P 6C

¶34

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

¶35

2/2

R.M.Veerappa Chettiar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.M.Veerappa Chettiar 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

T.Periyasamy Vs the Superintending Engineer

Mani Nagappa Motors Madurai Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Regional Transport Officer

K.Soundarammal Vs the District Collector

Adaikalasamy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M.v.Chellaiah Vs the District Collector/Inspector of Panchayat

P. Sathiyendiran Vs the Assistant Director