Dismissed

R.Suresh Kumar v. The Government of TamilNadu

Madras HC15 Dec 2022WP/33656/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought directions to prevent construction on a waterbody and graveyard and to stop sewage discharge. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn. Directions issued to respondents to ensure no sewage water is discharged and garbage is not dumped in the waterbody.

R.Suresh Kumar Vs The Government of TamilNadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.33656 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

Writ Petition No.33656 of 2022

¶9

R.Suresh Kumar .. Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Govt. of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department Secretariat Chennai 600 005.

¶12

The Deputy Director Directorate of Town and Country Planning DTCP Office

¶13

1st Floor, Kumaran Commercial Complex Tirupur 641 601.

¶14

The Block Development Officer Palladam Tirupur District.

¶15

The Commissioner Palladam Municipality No.1, Trichy Road, Palladam Tirupur District - 641 664. .. Respondents

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.33656 of 2022

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein not to put up or permit construction or development of any kind, over the existing graveyard situated on encroachment on the waterbody and also on the existing waterbody in S.No.590 of Naranapuram Village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District, as notified by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.252, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(2)] Department dated 12.11.2010 and further direct the fourth respondent to take necessary steps to reclaim the waterbody and protect the waterbody by not letting in sewage water and dumping of garbage.

¶20

For the Petitioner : Mr.P.Sengottuvel

¶21

For the Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran Special Government Pleader for Respondents 1 & 2

¶22

Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader for Respondent-3

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶25

This public interest litigation has been filed for a direction to the respondents not to put up any construction in the existing graveyard

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.33656 of 2022

¶29

near waterbody and to protect the waterbody from sewage water and garbage.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when there is already a graveyard, the official respondents cannot obliterate it for the purpose of converting it into a crematorium. He further submitted that crematorium cannot be set up in a waterbody as it would pollute the entire waterbody. He also submitted that sewage water is being discharged and garbage is also being dumped in the waterbody which would prevent the water being used for agricultural purpose.

¶31

Learned State Government Pleader submitted that a similar

¶32

prayer made in W.P.No.25474 of 2022 was turned down by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 03.11.2022 and hence, the present writ petition with the similar prayer cannot be entertained.

¶33

In view of the fact that similar writ petition was dismissed, this Court cannot entertain this second round of litigation.

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.33656 of 2022

¶37

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to

¶38

withdraw this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall ensure that sewage water is not discharged and garbage is not dumped in the waterbody and if it is done, the petitioner is at liberty to proceed in the manner known to law. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, WMP Nos.33107 and 33108 of 2022 are also dismissed.

¶39

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 15.12.2022

¶40

kpl

¶41

¶42

The Secretary Housing and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 005.

¶43

The Deputy Director Directorate of Town and Country Planning DTCP Office, 1st Floor, Kumaran Commercial Complex Tirupur 641 601.

¶44

The Block Development Officer Palladam, Tirupur District.

¶45

The Commissioner, Palladam Municipality No.1, Trichy Road, Palladam, Tirupur District - 641 664.

¶46

Page 4 of 5

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.No.33656 of 2022

¶49

T.RAJA, ACJ, and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J

(kpl)

W.P.No.33656 of 2022

15.12.2022

Page 5 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Suresh Kumar v. The Government of TamilNadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Suresh Kumar v. The Government of TamilNadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R Velu Vs Ponnaya IAS

R.Sahil Batra Vs Union of India

P.Annadurai Vs The District Collector

G.Deva Vs Dr.R.Umayakunjaram

E.Kumar Vs Selvi.Saranya

Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Vs Durairajan @ R.D.Ragan