Dismissed

M.Kalaiselvi v. Government of Tamilnadu

Madras HC22 Sept 2021WP/20199/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking injunction against dumping drain water into a rainwater channel feeding a lake. Court permitted detailed representation to the Block Development Officer for inquiry and action by end of rainy season.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to carry detailed representation to the fifth respondent for inquiry and action; Writ disposed without order as to costs.

M.Kalaiselvi Vs Government of Tamilnadu — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 22.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

W.P.NO.20199 OF 2021

¶6

M.Kalaiselvi .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Home Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶9

The Principal Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Works Department PWD Estate, Chepauk, Chennai 5.

¶10

The Chief Engineer (General) Tamil Nadu Public Works Department PWD Estate, Chepauk, Chennai 5.

¶11

The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai 32.

¶12

The Block Development Officer BDO Office, Kundrathur Union at Padappai, Kancheepuram District.

¶13

Regional Development Officer Madambakka Panchayat, Kundrathur Panchayat Union at Padappai, Kancheepuram District 601 301.

¶14

The District Collector First Floor, Collectorate, Kancheepuram District 631 501.

¶15

The Tahsildar Kundrathur Taluk, Kundrathur, Kancheepuram District 600 069.

¶16

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

¶17

9. The District Revenue Officer
RDO Office, Collectorate, Kancheepuram District 601 301.
10. K.V.Bhuvaneshwari 11. T.R.Bhanumathy
12. R.Thangaraj
13. R.Rajadurai
14. S.Vasudevan
15. S.Deepa
16. S.Sirajudeen
17. S.Balamurali
18. T.R.Bhanumathy
19. R.M.Ayyappan
20. Geetha
21. R.Sagayaraj
22. Selvakumar
23. R.Sirajudeen
24. V.Suriyan
25. Chinnadurai
26. A.Janakiraman	.. Respondents

¶18

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 9 to take steps to prevent the flowing of drainage water through the groove dug on the 40 feet panchayat road laid at No.195, Kuthanur Village, Manikkapuram Layout, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chengalpet District into the rainwater canal.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶21

The petitioner, a resident of Kuthanur village in Kancheepuram District, complains of drain water and refuse material being fed into a rain water channel that leads to a lake which provides drinking water to the nearby areas.

¶22

The petitioner complains that a duct has been dug on a 40-ft panchayat road at No.195, Kuthanur village in Manikkapuram layout of Sriperumpudur Taluk, Chengalpet District that ultimately runs into a rain water channel which connects to the Neelamangalam lake.

¶23

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

¶24

The petitioner says that representations, including to the Chief Minister's Grievance Cell, have not yielded any positive result.

¶25

Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader,

¶26

appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 9. According to him, the Block Development Officer, Kundrathur would be the competent person to deal with the matter.

¶27

Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to carry a

¶28

fresh, detailed representation in respect of the matters complained of to the fifth respondent Block Development Officer within a fortnight from date, whereupon such official will cause an inquiry and take immediate appropriate action so that the rain water channel is not used for drainage purposes and the water at the Neelamanagalam lake is not contaminated any further. The fifth respondent will communicate a reasoned decision to the petitioner within twelve weeks of the receipt of the representation. If any action is deemed to be necessary, such action should be taken as expeditiously as possible and, preferably within six weeks of the receipt of the petitioner's representation since the rainy season is already here.

¶29

W.P.No.20199 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as to costs.. W.M.P.Nos.21460 and 21461 of 2021 are closed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

sra

¶35

To:

¶36

The Home Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶37

The Principal Secretary Tamil Nadu Public Works Department PWD Estate, Chepauk, Chennai 5.

¶38

The Chief Engineer (General) Tamil Nadu Public Works Department PWD Estate, Chepauk, Chennai 5.

¶39

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

¶40

4.	The Chairman Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board No.76, Mount Salai, Guindy, Chennai 32.
5.	The Block Development Officer BDO Office, Kundrathur Union at Padappai Kancheepuram District.
6.	Regional Development Officer Madambakka Panchayat Kundrathur Panchayat Union at Padappai Kancheepuram District 601 301.
7.	The District Collector First Floor, Collectorate Kancheepuram District 631 501.
8.	The Tahsildar Kundrathur Taluk, Kundrathur, Kancheepuram District 600 069.
9.	The District Revenue Officer RDO Office, Collectorate, Kancheepuram District 601 301.
+1c	c to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.49086
	W.P.No.20199 of 2021
MG( CS/	CO) 05/10/2021

¶41

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

M.Kalaiselvi v. Government of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kalaiselvi v. Government of Tamilnadu

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

K.Annamalai Vs Additional Secretary to Government

State Bank of India Vs Assistant Pf Commissioner and

S.Prabakaran Vs The District Collector

K.K.Ramesh Vs Union of India

College Students and Graduates Association Vs Union of India

G.Sundarrajan Vs Union of India