The petitioner challenged a quarry permit granted to a sixth respondent. The court observed that the permit's ten-month period had lapsed long before the hearing, rendering the writ petition infructuous and dismissing it.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; connected petitions closed.
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.
W.P.[MD]No.17753 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.09.2021 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR W.P.[MD]No.17753 of 2013 and M.P.[MD]Nos.1 of 2014 & 2 of 2013
Packiyam
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.
3.The Block Development Officer, Kariapatti Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District.
4.The Tahsildar, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District. 5.The President, Mangulam Panchayat, Kariapatti Panchayat Union, Virudhunagar District.
6.S.S.Pradeep Raja
... Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.Ke.Ve.3/6259/2013 dated 03.09.2013 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of law.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jothi Basu For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.D.Ghandiraj Government Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar For Respondent No.6 : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar for Ajmal Associates
1/3
W.P.[MD]No.17753 of 2013
O R D E R
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.Ke.Ve.3/6259/2013 dated 03.09.2013 and quash the same.
2.Under the order of the District Collector, Virudhunagar District dated 03.09.2013, quarry permit has been given to the sixth respondent for a period of ten months up to 02.07.2014. Felt aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner, challenging the said permission dated 03.09.2013 of the District Collector, has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
3.When this writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, since the period of lease itself is only for a period of ten months which lapsed long back, virtually nothing survives in this writ petition.
4.In view of the said submission, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
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.
To
2/3
W.P.[MD]No.17753 of 2013
4.The Tahsildar, Kariapatti, Virudhunagar District.
+1 CC to M/s.M.Jothi basu, Advocate (SR-27819[F] dated 01/09/2021) +1 CC to M/s.The Special Government Pleader( SR-27903[F] dated 02/09/2021 )
W.P.[MD]No.17753 of 2013 01.09.2021
RS (08.09.2021) 3P 7C
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the quarry permit order is maintainable given that the lease period has lapsed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Packiyam
The District Collector, Virudhunagar District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai
The Block Development Officer, Kariapatti
The Tahsildar, Kariapatti
The President, Mangulam Panchayat
R. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
