Dismissed

S.Sivakandan v. the District Collector

Madras HC6 Dec 2021WP/25863/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order dismissing a writ petition under Article 226 challenging non-action on a representation regarding overhead tank construction. The court found no proposal for the alleged distant construction upon the respondents

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the finding that there was no proposal for the construction of the overhead tank away from the pumping station.

S.Sivakandan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.12.2021 CORAM :

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

W.P.No.25863 of 2021

¶6

S.Sivakandan .. Petitioner

¶7

¶8

The District Collector, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶9

The Block Development Officer, Kammapuram, Cuddalore District. 606101. .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 27.9.2021.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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

¶13

Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, accepts notice for the respondents.

¶14

The writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.9.2021.

¶15

The said representation is for construction of an overhead tank close to the pumping station.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have taken a decision to construct the overhead tank 500 meters away from the pump station. However, the construction of the said overhead tank could not be undertaken due to the protest of the villagers. Expressing his grievance, the petitioner gave a

¶17

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

¶18

representation to the second respondent. Since no action has been taken on the said representation, the above writ petition has been filed.

¶19

The learned State Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions from one Mr.Anthony Swamy, Liasoning Officer, Cuddalore District, who is present in Court today, submits that there is no proposal for construction of the overhead tank as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

The said submission of the learned State Government

¶21

Pleader is recorded.

¶22

In view of said submissions of the learned State Government Pleader, we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition appears to have been filed on the apprehension that the overhead tank would be constructed far away from the pumping station whereas there is no such proposal for the construction of the same, as stated by the learned State Government Pleader.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in future, if any action is taken by the respondents for the construction of overhead tank and if the petitioner still remains aggrieved by such action, he is at liberty to avail the remedies as per law. There will be no order as to costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

¶29

To:

¶30

1.The District Collector, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.

¶31

2.The Block Development Officer,

¶32

Kammapuram, Cuddalore District.606101.

¶33

+1cc to Government Pleader, in SR.No.64400 [08/04/2022]

W.P.No.25863 of 2021

MG(CO)

CT09/12/2021

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

S.Sivakandan v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sivakandan 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

R.M.Thandayuthapani Vs Vijayakumar

B.Veeralakshmi Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M.Harikrishnan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

A.Farook Basha Llb, Vs The Chief Secretary

Bank of Maharashtra Vs The Tahsildar

Ca v.Venkata Siva Kumar Vs Union of India