Allowed

Paramasivam v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Mar 2021CRL RC(MD)/254/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the District Collector/Arbitrator to dispose of ongoing arbitration proceedings under the National Highways Act within a specific time limit due to undue delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to complete the arbitration proceedings and pass the award within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Paramasivam Vs The Sub Inspector of Police — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W1.P.(MD).No.7729 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.04.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.7729 of 2021

K.V.Balaji

...Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector / Arbitrator, Madurai.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), Usilampatti.

¶12

The Project Director, National Highways Authority, Madurai-Kanyakumari NH-7, Golden Quadrilateral Scheme, Four Ways Track National Highways, Madurai.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose the petitioner's arbitration proceedings in Appeal No.1/TMM/Sivarakkottai/2019, filed under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.M.P.Senthil For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Rajarajan Additional Government Pleader For R-3 : Mr.Arulvadivel @ Sekar

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to dispose of the arbitration proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Section 3 G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, within the time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

2 . The petitioner was the owner of the subject property, which was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India. The compensation was fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) and the petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation fixed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Authority. Hence, the petitioner exercised his statutory right of

¶19

1/3

¶20

W1.P.(MD).No.7729 of 2021

¶21

initiating arbitration proceedings before the first respondent.

¶22

3 . The grievance of the petitioner is that the proceedings have not progressed and it is being kept pending by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court seeking for appropriate directions.

¶23

Heard Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents and Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶24

5 . Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited relief sought for in this Writ Petition, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to complete the proceedings and pass the award within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

6 . The petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the first respondent along with all the relevant documents and also a copy of this order.

¶26

7 . This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

Tsg

¶30

¶31

The District Collector / Arbitrator, Madurai.

¶32

The Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), Usilampatti.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.M.P.SENTHIL, Advocate ( SR-15665[F] dated 09/04/2021 )

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.C.ARUL VADIVEL @ SEKAR, Advocate ( SR-15784[F] dated 15/04/2021 )

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-15865[F] dated 15/04/2021 )

¶36

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

¶37

2/3

¶38

W1.P.(MD).No.7729 of 2021

¶39

NOTE:

¶40

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.

¶41

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.7729 of 2021

¶42

Dated: 09.04.2021

¶43

CN(03.05.2021) 3P 6C

¶44

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

¶45

3/3

Paramasivam v. The Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramasivam v. The Sub Inspector of Police

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

Logan Santhiyagu Vs The Inspector of Police

Velusamy Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Duraisamy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Sheik Dawood Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

M.Rangarajan Vs v.Selvaraj

Andiyappan Vs The Inspector of Police