Disposed

Manikandan.M v. the District Collector

Madras HC21 Jun 2021WP(MD)/230/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses allegations of illegal ground water extraction by two respondents. The Court held that it cannot monitor such issues directly but instead directed specific authorities to conduct surprise inspections and examine claims of excess drawal. The petition was disposed of following these directions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to examine excess ground water drawal by the seventh respondent and the Fisheries Department to conduct a surprise inspection regarding the eighth respondent.

Manikandan.M Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.[MD]No.230 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.06.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI W.P.[MD]No.230 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD) No.190 of 2021

¶4

M.Manikandan : Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Madurai. 2.The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, Melaponnagaram 5^th Street, Pandiyan Towers 2^nd Floor, Arappalayam, Madurai. 3.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Periyar-Vaigai Canal, Thallakulam, Madurai. 4.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai. 5.Block Development Officer, Madurai West Panchayat Union, Madurai. 6.The President, Veerapandi Village, Madurai West Panchayat Union, Madurai. 7.JMC Projects (India) Limited., Represented by Project Engineer, Project Office, Veerapandy Village,

¶7

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

¶8

1/4

¶9

W.P.[MD]No.230 of 2021

¶10

Opp.Vikaasa World School, Alanganallur Main Road, Madurai.

¶11

8.P.Ramakrishnan : Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to initiate appropriate action to prevent illegal extraction of ground water, regulate extraction of water by the seventh respondent in Veerapandi Village and Veerapandi Kanmai and also to direct the eighth respondent not to release or extract water from the Veerapandi Kanmai, in the guise of Fish License situated at Veerapandi Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District, by considering the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.11.2020.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Udayakumar For R-1 to R-6 : Mr. R.Baskaran Standing Counsel for Government For R-7 & R-8 : Mr.R.Anand

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

**************

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. ]

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition alleging that the seventh respondent is excessively extracting ground water for commercial purpose. Similarly, the eighth respondent is also doing so, by commercially extracting the ground water and also catching fish, etc.

¶18

2.So far as the seventh respondent is concerned, he is a contractor appointed by the National Highways for developing the Natham road and it is stated that the land allotted is more than 17 acres and there are four bore-wells. Out of which, one borewell is in disuse. The remaining three bore-wells, one is used for the Labourers Camp, the other is used for the office purpose and the third bore-well, the water is drawn for pouring of concrete slabs in the concrete yard and no indiscriminate exploitation of ground water is being done.

¶19

So far as the eighth respondent is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel for Government submitted that the Fisheries Department has granted Fishing rights to the eighth respondent. The allegation is that the eighth respondent is drawing water from the tank, in which, he was granted Fishery rights alone. This aspect also has to be examined by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ competent authority, by conducting appropriate surprise inspection

¶20

2/4

¶21

W.P.[MD]No.230 of 2021

¶22

and we cannot monitor the same in this writ petition.

¶23

4.In the light of the above, it is open to the fourth respondent Tahsildar, to examine as to whether there is any excess drawal of underground water by the seventh respondent company, which has the effect on the public wells and public bore-wells. So far as the eight respondent is concerned, the second respondent can conduct a surprise inspection to ascertain as to whether the eighth respondent has installed bore-well in the water body, lake and drawing water for commercial purpose. The above direction be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24

5.With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

¶28

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.

¶29

¶30

1.The District Collector, District Collectorate, Madurai.

¶31

2.The Assistant Director, Fisheries Department, Melaponnagaram 5^th Street, Pandiyan Towers 2^nd Floor, Arappalayam, Madurai.

¶32

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

¶33

3/4

¶34

W.P.[MD]No.230 of 2021

¶35

3.The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resource Organization, Periyar-Vaigai Canal, Thallakulam, Madurai. 4.The Tahsildar, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai. 5.Block Development Officer, Madurai West Panchayat Union, Madurai. 6.The President, Veerapandi Village, Madurai West Panchayat Union, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.K.K.UDAYAKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-19853[F] dated 22/06/2021 ) +1 CC to M/s.R.MURALI, Advocate ( SR-19866[F] dated 22/06/2021 )

¶36

ORDER MADE IN W.P.[MD]No.230 of 2021

¶37

21.06.2021

¶38

CN(07.07.2021) 4P 9C

¶39

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

¶40

4/4

Manikandan.M v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan.M 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.D.G.P. Civil Defence Vs N.Sundarapandiyan

The Tiruchirappalli City Corporation Vs Sundarrajan

Ramasamy Vs the Dist. Collector

The Management Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation(Madurai Division II Limited), Vs v.Manickam

T.Lakshmanan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Alagarsamy.S Vs the Dist.Collector