Disposed

P.Lakshmanan v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Jun 2021WP/12257/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition filed under Article 226 praying for a writ of mandamus to stop a private cattle market causing traffic snarls. Court directed the Municipal Commissioner to dispose of a representation by a reasoned order within eight weeks after hearing concerned parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of it by a reasoned order within eight weeks after providing opportunity to both parties.

P.Lakshmanan Vs The District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.06.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.12257 of 2021

¶8

P.Lakshmanan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The District Collector
Collector Office
Erode 638 011.
2. The Commissioner
Erode City Municipal Corporation
Erode 638 011.
3. M.Indhirani .. Respondent
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1
and 2 to stop the function of the third respondent cattle market
situated at Pallipalayam Road, Ambika Saw Mill back side,
Karungalpalayam, Erode, permanently based on the petitioner's
representation dated 15.06.2020 in accordance with law.

¶9

For : Mr.N.Chinnaraj
Petitioner
For Respondents : Mr.Muthukumar
Counsel for State
for respondents 1 and 2
ORDER
(Made by SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.)

¶10

The petitioner complains of the operation of a cattle market near Karungalpalayam in Erode District.

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner alleges that the third respondent herein is running a private cattle market behind Ambika Saw Mill, near Karungalpalayam. As a consequence, thousands of sheep, cows and buffaloes are brought to the said market by traders. In spite of the fact that the licence permits the third respondent to operate only on one day in a week, the market is being operated from Tuesday evening to Thursday night.

¶13

The petitioner further states that the said market is in a congested urban area and does not have parking facilities. Consequently, it is causing traffic snarls and affecting the functioning of various religious structures and a crematorium located in the vicinity. The petitioner states that a representation was submitted in this connection on 15.06.2020, but no action has been taken thereon.

¶14

Mr.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the Government, accepts notice on behalf of both the respondents and submits that the second respondent would consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a reasonable time-frame.

¶15

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 15.06.2020 and dispose of the same by a reasoned order, after providing a reasonable opportunity to both the petitioner and the third respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

As the second respondent has been directed to hear the third respondent before passing orders, the writ petition is disposed of without notice to the third respondent.

¶17

W.P.No.12257 of 2021 is disposed of on the above terms, without any order as to costs.

¶18

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶19

True Copy

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶21

tar

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

The District Collector Collector Office Erode 638 011.

¶25

The Commissioner Erode City Municipal Corporation Erode 638 011.

¶26

1 cc to Mr. Government Pleader Sr.27539
W.P.No.12257 of 2021
VBM(CO)
EU 8.6.2021

¶27

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

P.Lakshmanan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Lakshmanan 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

Dr.T.Sundaravadivelan Vs The District Collector

V.Deivam Vs The District Collector

M.Michael Vs The Commissioner of Land Administration

M/s.Iifl Home Finance Ltd. Vs The Chief judicial Magistrate

D.I,Nathan Vs The Chief Secretary

G.Vivekanandan Vs The Chief Secretary