Dismissed

Sp.D.Karuppaiah v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Feb 2021WP(MD)/1461/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order where the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court was approached to restore passenger gates at the Karaikudi bus stand. The Bench declined to intervene, stating minor encroachments should be addressed by local authorities and the matter lacked public interest. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sp.D.Karuppaiah Vs the District Collector — Corruption | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1461 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.02.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶4

and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.1461 of 2020

SP.D.Karuppaiah

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶11

2.The Regional Administrating Director for Municipality, Aringar Anna Maligai, 3rd Floor,

¶12

Madurai Corporation Building,

¶13

Madurai - 625 002.

¶14

3.The Commissioner,

¶15

Karaikudi Municipality, Sivagangai District.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to restore the two passengers rolling gates in the North Eastern Side and North Western Side of the obstructing wall of the Karaikudi New Bus Stand, which is causing hindrance to the entry of the passengers and public, by implementing the order passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.E4/37254/2009, dated 25.05.2010 and on the basis of the petitioner's representation, dated 10.11.2019 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.N.Shanmugaselvan, Additional Government Pleader for R.1 & R.2 Mr.P.Mahendran for R.3

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶22

The matter pertains to the restoration of passenger rolling gates on the north-eastern and north-western side of an obstructing wall at the Karaikudi bus stand.

¶23

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

¶24

Page 1 of 3

¶25

W.P.(MD) No.1461 of 2020

¶26

It can hardly be expected of the High Court, no less, to look into the matters pertaining to ingress and egress at every bus stand all over the State. In any event, the local authorities, particularly, the Transport Department, should be approached and if there is a matter of any great public importance affecting the larger section of the society, may the High Court be approached. The present trend, whether it is borne out of political ambitions or professional reasons, to approach the High Court with a complaint of an encroachment in tiniest part of a remote village or to deal with the access to a bus terminus or to consider the bus timings at a particular stop adds to the pendency of matters and impede the Court’s function. As a consequence, matters of larger public interest that require the Court’s attention may get neglected. More often than not, persons with an axe to grind complain of matters and give a public interest twist to the same.

¶27

It is unfortunate that a degree of restraint that ought to be exercised at the Bar and the filter that ought to be carried out by the Bar may have been lost or surrendered its efficacy. The petition is not entertained as it does not involve any matter of great significance or large public interest. Nothing in this order will prevent the persons affected from making a representation to the appropriate authorities.

¶28

W.P.No.1461 of 2020 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

gk/ogy

¶32

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶33

To:

¶34

1.The District Collector, Sivagangai District.

¶35

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

¶36

___________ Page 2 of 3

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.1461 of 2020

¶38

2.The Regional Administrating Director for Municipality, Aringar Anna Maligai, 3rd Floor, Madurai Corporation Building,

¶39

Madurai - 625 002.

¶40

+1 CC to Mr.P.MAHENDRAN, Advocate ( SR-7932[F] dated 01/03/2021 )

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.1461 of 2020 25.02.2021

¶42

VB (05.03.2021) 3P 4C

¶43

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

¶44

___________ Page 3 of 3

Sp.D.Karuppaiah v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sp.D.Karuppaiah 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

Chidambaram Vs the District Collector

L.Murugavel Vs the State Election Commissioner

Belgina Mary Stella.L Vs The District Collector

K. Prabhu Vs the District Collector

V.Jahubar Aysha Beevi Vs The District Collector

M. Samayaselvam Vs the Union of India