Disposed

Chandrasekaran.M v. the Commissioner

Madras HC17 Sept 2021WP(MD)/16706/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Madras High Court disposed a writ petition seeking direction to complete underground drainage works. Court directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a reasoned order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.03.2021 regarding drainage works and pass a reasoned order within three months.

Chandrasekaran.M Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.16706 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.09.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

W.P(MD).No.16706 of 2021

¶7

M.Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai-2. 2.The District Collector, Madurai-20. ... Respondents

¶10

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.03.2021 seeking completion of underground drainage connection works at Chockalingam Nagar 7^th Street, Koodal Nagar, Madurai and take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law within a stipulated time.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Karthik Kannan For Respondents : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian (for R1) Mr.P.Subbaraj Counsel for State (for R2)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner seeks the completion of underground drainage works at Chockalingam Nagar 7^th street, Koodal Nagar, Madurai, pursuant to his representation dated 28.03.2021.

¶14

2.The petitioner states that the first respondent has undertaken and completed the construction of an underground drainage facility in all the adjacent areas except 7^th street. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.03.2021 requesting that such drainage work should be completed quickly. As a consequence of not completing such drainage works, the petitioner states that the residents of 7^th street are badly affected.

¶15

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

¶16

1/3

¶17

W.P(MD)No.16706 of 2021

¶18

3.An ancillary issue is raised with regard to the alleged encroachment by the “AG Sabhai of Assembly of God”. However, in this writ petition, the petitioner is confining the relief claimed to the completion of underground drainage connection works.

¶19

4.Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, learned Standing Counsel for the Madurai Corporation, accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.P.Subbaraj, learned counsel for the State, accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent. Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, submits, on instructions, that the relevant underground drainage connection work has commenced and that it would be completed within a reasonable time. Therefore, he submits that the representation of the petitioner would be considered insofar as the completion of the underground drainage work is concerned. The alleged encroachment is a separate matter and he submits that the relief in the present writ petition may be confined to the completion of underground drainage connection work.

¶20

5.In view of the above submission by learned Standing Counsel for the Madurai Corporation, W.P.(MD)No.16706 of 2021 is disposed of by directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.03.2021 insofar as it pertains to the completion of underground drainage connection work at Chockalingam Nagar 7^th street, Koodal Nagar, Madurai and pass a reasoned order thereon within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

sji

¶25

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.

¶26

¶27

1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai-2.

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

W.P(MD)No.16706 of 2021

¶31

2.The District Collector, Madurai-20.

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.SPL. GP ( SR-29577[F] dated 20/09/2021 )

¶33

W.P(MD).No.16706 of 2021

¶34

17.09.2021

¶35

MGJ(28.09.2021) 3P 4C

¶36

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

¶37

3/3

Chandrasekaran.M v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekaran.M v. the Commissioner

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

K. Pommuthumari, Vs the Director

Mehadharshini Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Surliyammal D Vs the Commissioner of Fisheries and Fisherman Welfare

Mariammal.D Vs the District Collector

Mohammed Iqbal Vs the District Collector

Moorthy Vs the Government of Tamilnadu