Disposed

G.Vijayakumar v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Madras HC7 Jul 2021WP/12727/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to stop the erection of a mobile phone tower on a residential house, alleging health risks and lack of building permits. The court directed the revenue authority to dispose of the representation by a reasoned order after hearing both parties within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directs the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the representation by a reasoned order within eight weeks after hearing both parties.

G.Vijayakumar Vs The Revenue Divisional officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.P.No.12727 of 2021

¶8

G.Vijayakumar ...Petitioner Vs 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Ponneri taluk Thiruvallur District 2 Mr. Pandian ...Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent authority mentioned above to take immediate steps to stop the erection of the cell phone tower on the second floor of the 2nd respondent residential house situated at No. 46 Kalaingar Street Thadaperumbakkam Colony Ponneri taluk Thiruvallur District 601 204.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Prakash Raj For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar Counsel for State, for 1^st respondent

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner seeks to prevent the erection of a mobile phone tower on the second floor of the second respondent’s residential house. The petitioner states that he is a resident of Kalaignar Street, Thadaperumbakkam Colony, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvalur District, which is a residential area. He further states that a mobile phone tower is being erected on top of the second floor of a neighbouring house, and that this poses a risk

¶13

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

¶14

to him and others in the vicinity. It is alleged that the said property was constructed without obtaining necessary building permits. In spite of submitting a representation to the first respondent to stop the erection of the mobile phone tower, no action has been taken to prevent such erection.

¶15

Mr.Muthukumar, learned Counsel for the State, accepts notice for the first respondent and submits that the first respondent would consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation within a reasonable time-frame.

¶16

Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter,
the first respondent is directed to consider the representation
dated 10.07.2021 of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a
reasoned order after providing a reasonable opportunity of
hearing both to the petitioner and to the second respondent.
Such reasoned order shall be passed within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On
account of the fact that the first respondent has been directed
to hear the second respondent before passing orders, the writ
petition is disposed of without notice to the second respondent.
4. W.P.No.12727 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as
to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tar
To:
1 The Revenue Divisional Officer
Ponneri taluk Thiruvallur District
+ 1CC TO Mr. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR 31689
W.P.No.12727 of 2021
JPL(CO)
SU(12/07/2021)

¶17

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

G.Vijayakumar v. The Revenue Divisional officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Vijayakumar v. The Revenue Divisional officer

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

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

Workmen of Renault- Nissan Vs State of Tami Nadu

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs Cipla Limited

Mugilan, Vs the Director General of Shipping

Lyca Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Shankar

Mr.T.Maheswaran, Vs Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and