Disposed

Suja. S v. The District Collector

Madras HC7 Nov 2022WP(MD)/22422/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order refusing permission for temporary seasonal shops in Kanyakumari District. The Court dismissed the petition but directed the petitioners to apply for permission in areas outside the prohibited Coastal Regulation Zone, to be decided within one week.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed to file fresh applications for shops outside the prohibited Coastal Regulation Zone, to be decided within one week by the respondents.

Suja. S Vs The District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD) No.22422 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 07.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.22422 of 2022 and WMP(MD) No.16617 of 2022

¶7

S.Suja

¶8

Lingeshwari

¶9

P.Mahesh

¶10

Merlin

¶11

Rayappan

¶12

Stephen

¶13

Sivasudalaimani

¶14

Iqbal

¶15

Vinitha

¶16

George Ammal

¶17

Sahaya Sarginal

¶18

Sahaya Jude Albino

¶19

Boologa Raja

¶20

Delphin Jacob

¶21

Aani Rose

¶22

Atlin

¶23

... Petitioners

¶24

-vs-

¶25

The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, at Nagarcoil.

¶26

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

¶27

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶28

W.P(MD) No.22422 of 2022

¶29

The Assistant Director, Town Panchayat, Collectorate Campus, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶30

The Executive Officer, Kanyakumari Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶31

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.7326/2022/P3 dated 13.09.2022 and quash the same and consequently, directing the first respondent to grant permission to the second respondent to put up and lease out temporary shops during the period from mid of November 2022 to mid of January 2023.

¶32

For Petitioners : Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan

¶33

For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader for R3

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

(Order of the Court was made by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)

¶36

Challenging the proceedings dated 13.09.2022, passed by the first

¶37

respondent – the District Collector, Kanyakumari District, refusing to grant permission to set up temporary seasonal shops in the beach road of

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶39

W.P(MD) No.22422 of 2022

¶40

petition.

¶41

Kanyakumari District, the petitioners have come forward with this writ petition.

¶42

Heard Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that every year during the festival season from the mid of November to the mid of January, permission is being granted by the respondents for temporary seasonal shops outside the prohibited zone at Kanyakumari District. However, for this year, the respondents are not granting permission to set up such temporary shops. Hence, this writ petition.

¶44

In reply, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has produced the proceedings of the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.2052/2022 fFkheCm, dated 21.10.2022 and submitted that the proposed areas for setting up of the temporary seasonal shops fall within 500 meters of the Coastal Regulation Zone as

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶46

W.P(MD) No.22422 of 2022

¶47

per G.O.No.152, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 22.02.1994 and therefore, the impugned order has been rightly passed.

¶48

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are inclined to set up the temporary seasonal shops in the areas which are not covered within the prohibited Coastal Regulation Zone and therefore, the petitioners may be permitted to make fresh applications in this regard to the respondents and the same may be directed to be considered and dispose of by the respondents within a time frame.

¶49

Recording the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to make fresh applications seeking permission to put up temporary seasonal shops outside the prohibited zone, to the respondents within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such applications, the respondents are directed to consider the same in the light of G.O.No.152, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 22.02.1994 and other Government Orders in this regard and also the earlier orders passed by this Court and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶51

W.P(MD) No.22422 of 2022

¶52

law within a period of one week thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶53

[R.M.D., J.] [J.S.N.P., J.] 07.11.2022

¶54

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No pkn Note : Issue order copy tomorrow i.e., 08.11.2022.

¶55

To:

¶56

The District Collector, Kanyakumari District, at Nagarcoil.

¶57

The Assistant Director, Town Panchayat, Collectorate Campus, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶58

The Executive Officer, Kanyakumari Town Panchayat, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District.

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶60

W.P(MD) No.22422 of 2022

¶61

R.MAHADEVAN, J. and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.

¶62

pkn

¶63

W.P.(MD) No.22422 of 2022

¶64

07.11.2022

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 6 of 6_

Suja. S v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suja. S 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

Ganesan.M Vs the Authorized Officer/ Branch Manager

Rosmi.D Vs the Honble Principal District Judge

The District Collector, Vs R. Murugesan

Eswaran.K Vs the District Collector

The Commissioner of Customs, Vs M/s. Sri Shunmuga Traders

Shalivahanan. A.D Vs The Authorized Officer