The court held that a permission to use a road for agricultural materials had expired in 2015. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh application if desired, and the writ petition was disposed of without costs.
The petitioner permitted to file fresh application; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.26342 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
K.Ponnusamy
... Petitioner
Vs
Water Resource Organisation,
... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2 nd respondent made in proceedings No.SE.MU.KA.No.THONUPE/VAA/ KO.10/357M dated 15.09.2014 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Umapathi
For Respondents : Mr.T.Venkatesh Kumar
Special Government Pleader
O R D E R
The order dated 15.09.2014 cancelling the permission granted in favour of the petitioner for using the right side of Parambikulam Alliyar Project as road to take away the agricultural materials from his lands is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2.The authorities competent granted permission in favour of the writ petitioner to use the road for a period of one year in proceedings dated 31.01.2014. The permission was granted on condition. The terms and conditions of permission stipulates
that permission was granted for a period of one year and therefore, the permission granted expired in the year 2015 itself.
3.The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the impugned order of cancellation of permission was issued on certain allegations against the petitioner. The order impugned states that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions stipulated in the permission letter.
4.However, this Court is of an opinion that already 6½ years had lapsed and the period also expired in January 2015 itself. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a fresh application for consideration, if he has chosen to do so.
5.With this liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
cse
To
+1cc to Mr.N.Umapathi , Advocate, S.R.No.69304
W.P.No.26342 of 2014
VG-II[co] NSK 10/01/2022
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the challenge to a cancelled permission for using a project road for agricultural purposes is valid after the permission period had expired.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Ponnusamy
The District Collector, Coimbatore
The Superintendent Engineer, PWD
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
