Remanded

Selvi v. The District Collector

Madras HC4 Oct 2021WP/21381/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging a notice to vacate premises issued without prior enquiry, the High Court held that the notice could be treated as a show-cause notice. The Court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to submit a reply within two weeks and conduct an enquiry before taking further action.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to submit a reply within two weeks; the second respondent to conduct an enquiry before taking further action.

Selvi Vs The District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 04.10.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

W.P.NO.21381 OF 2021 AND W.M.P.NO.22626 OF 2021

¶6

Selvi ... Petitioner

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

The District Collector, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.

¶9

The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat Office, Vaitheeswarankovil, Mayiladuthurai District. ...Respondents

¶10

Prayer:

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to conduct appropriate enquiry before initiating any further action pursuant to the notice bearing No.Na.Ka.No.236/2021/a1 dated 06.09.2021 issued by the second respondent.

¶12

For petitioner : Mr.K.J.Saravanan For respondents : Mrs.Akila Rajendran Govt.Counsel (for R1) Mr.S.J.Mohammed Sathik Standing Counsel (for R2)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(The Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J)

¶15

Mrs.Akila Rajendran, learned Government Counsel takes notice for the first respondents and Mr.S.J.Mohammed Sathik, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the second respondent. By consent, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶16

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

¶17

2.The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to direct the respondents to conduct appropriate enquiry before initiating any further action pursuant to the notice bearing No.Na.Ka.No.236/2021/a1 dated 06.09.2021 issued by the second respondent.

¶18

3.The petitioner would claim that she is the owner of the property bearing Door No.7, Vandikara Street, Vaitheeswaran Koil, Nagapattinam, by virtue of a registered settlement deed No.536 of 2002 dated 01.06.2012 and she is residing therein with her family. She was provided with electricity service connection and she has been paying property tax to the local body.

¶19

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.K.J.Saravanan would urge that the second respondent has issued a notice dated 06.09.2021 directing the petitioner to vacate the place within a period of fifteen days in pursuance of the order passed in W.P.No.14236 of 2021. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in the order, the Division Bench of this Court directed the second respondent to take action after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all parties, but the second respondent without giving any opportunity and without conducting any enquiry, passed the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to conduct an enquiry before implementing the order.

¶20

5.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent would state that the petitioner has encroached the Elephant Tank, hence, this action has been taken in accordance with the order passed in W.P.No.14236 of 2021 and there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the second respondent.

¶21

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

7.In the matter on hand, it is an admitted fact that in W.P.No.14236 of 2021, the Hon'ble First Bench, while dealing with the Public Interested Litigation, directed the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in that case within a period of eight weeks, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to all parties affected thereby including the petitioner and the alleged encroachers. Indisputably, without conducting any enquiry, the notice dated 06.09.2021 was issued directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment.

¶23

8.In the light of the above undisputed facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notice dated 06.09.2021 can be treated as show-cause notice and an opportunity can be given

¶24

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

¶25

to the petitioner to submit her reply to the second respondent and after providing ample opportunity to the petitioner, the second respondent shall be directed to pass orders.

¶26

9.In such view of the matter, we direct the petitioner to

¶27

submit a reply to the notice of the second respondent dated 06.09.2021 within a period of two weeks by enclosing a copy of this order. On receipt of such reply, the second respondent shall conduct an enquriy before taking any further action.

¶28

10.With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

Assistant Registrar(CS IX)

¶31

//True Copy//

¶32

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶33

skn

¶34

¶35

The District Collector, Mayiladuthurai District, Mayiladuthurai.

¶36

The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat Office, Vaitheeswarankovil, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.K.J.Saravanan, Advocate, S.R.No.51476

¶38

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.51983

¶39

W.P.No.21381 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.22626 of 2021

¶40

CP(CO) CS/08/11/2021

¶41

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

Selvi v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvi 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

Thirupathi Gounder Vs The District Collector

Sundar Vs Commissioner

N.T.Gopikrishnan Vs Parvathavarthini

P.Anandhaselvam Vs The Secretary to the Government

M/s. Siechem Technologies Pvt.Ltd Vs The union of India

V.Munusamy Vs The District Collector