Disposed

Radha v. the District Collector

Madras HC5 Jan 2022WP(MD)/180/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside a notice under Section 26(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act 2002 issued by the 2nd respondent. The order was passed mechanically without applying mind, violating a prior judicial direction to conduct an enquiry and afford a hearing before concluding encroachment.

What did the court decide?

The notice issued by the 2nd respondent was set aside. The 1st respondent was directed to look into the matter.

Radha Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.180 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.01.2022

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.180 of 2022 and WMP(MD)No.130 of 2022

Radha

... Petitioner

vs.

The District Collector, Theni, Theni District.

¶11

1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, National Highways,

¶12

Theni.

¶13

The Thasildar, Office of the Theni Taluk Office, Theni, Theni District. ... Respondents

¶14

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent herein vide Na.Ka.No.130/2021/Vu dated 22.12.2021 and quash the same.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For Respondents : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. )

¶18

The writ petition is filed challenging the notice issued by the 2 nd respondent under Section 26(2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act 2002.

¶19

2. Earlier, the very same writ petitioner had moved this Court in W.P(MD)No.21601 of 2021 challenging the similar order dated 20.11.2021 issued by the very same official. This Court set aside

¶20

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

¶21

Page 1/3

¶22

W.P(MD)No.180 of 2022

¶23

the same only on the ground that there was no notice issued to the petitioner before the order of encroachment was passed. While passing the order, this Court had specifically directed the respondent, to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders, after affording her an opportunity of personal hearing, on merits and in accordance with law.

¶24

3. Despite the abovesaid detailed direction, without even applying the mind, the 2 nd respondent has once again issued the notice in a mechanical manner. Such notice also says that the encroachment made by the petitioner was confirmed, thereby calling upon her to remove the encroachment within a period of seven days.

¶25

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents is unable to say whether any notice was issued before coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had encroached upon the Highway's land.

¶26

5. Admittedly, no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. This is the second notice issued by the 2 nd respondent within a span of two months. Despite the intervention of this Court, the respondents have not considered the order of this Court and passed a stereo-typed order, jeopardizing the interest of the petitioner.

¶27

6. In the light of the above findings, we have no other option excepting to set aside the notice issued by the 2 nd respondent. It is also hereby warned that if the said officer once again passed another order without application of mind, he will be taken to task. The 1 st respondent / District Collector, Theni District, is also directed to look into the matter before proceeding further. However, it is made clear that if upon enquiry, the petitioner is found to be an encroacher, she has to be dealt with in the manner known to law.

¶28

7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

// True Copy //

¶30

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶31

bala

¶32

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

¶33

Page 2/3

¶34

W.P(MD)No.180 of 2022

¶35

¶36

The District Collector, Theni, Theni District. 2) The Assistant Divisional Engineer, National Highways Theni. 3) The Thasildar, Office of the Theni Taluk Office, Theni, Theni District. +1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-568[F] dated 06/01/2022 ) W.P(MD)No.180 of 2022 DATED : 05.01.2022 MGJ(20.01.2022) 3P 5C

¶37

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

¶38

Page 3/3

Radha v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha 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

J.Prakash Pandian Vs The District Collector

The Management, Vs the Presiding Officer

Mathivanan. P Vs The Secretary to Govt.

Vinoth Vs the District Collector

Syed Babu Cm Vs the Chief Election Commissioner

Rajanikanth Vs the Manager (Technical)