Disposed

A.Radhakrishnan v. The Vigilance Commissioner

Madras HC11 Sept 2023WP/14105/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought directions to remove unauthorized constructions on temple properties. The court noted that the petitioner had previously approached committees constituted under G.O.(Ms).No.540 without success and had failed to comply with the alternative remedy available before those committees. The court directed the competent officer to consider the petitioner's represe

What did the court decide?

Directed the 17th respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 02.12.2019 and pass orders within four weeks.

A.Radhakrishnan Vs The Vigilance Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 11.09.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA

¶7

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶8

A.Radhakrishnan … Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Vigilance Commissioner, Secretariat,

¶11

Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Secretary to Government, Tourism Culture & Endowments Department, Secretariat,

¶13

Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

3.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat,

¶15

Chennai – 600 009.

¶16

4.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat,

¶17

Chennai – 600 009.

¶18

5.The Secretary to Government, Public (Law & order C) Department,

¶19

1/15

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶22

Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 6.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 7.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 8.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 9.The Commissioner of Survey & Settlements, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 10.The Archeological Commissioner, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 11.The Director of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016. 12.The Director General of Police, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai – 600 004. 13.The Director of Town Panchayats, Santhome Road, Chennai – 600 028. 14.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.,

¶23

2/15

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶26

144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶27

15.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶28

16.The District Collector,

¶29

Salem.

¶30

17.The Taluk Executive Magistrate cum Tahsildar, Omalur,

¶31

Salem District.

¶32

18.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem – 636 007.

¶33

19.The Assistant Director,

¶34

District Survey Office, Salem – 636 001.

¶35

20.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats,

¶36

Salem – 636 001.

¶37

21.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Omalur, Salem District.

¶38

22.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Salem – 636 002. 23.The Superintending Engineer,

¶39

3/15

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶42

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., Mettur, Salem District.

¶43

24.The District Registrar (West), Collectorate Campus, Salem – 636 001. 25.The Archeological Officer, Dharmapuri. 26.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Salem - 636 001. 27.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Salem – 636 001. 28.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Group Temples, Tharamangalam, Salem District. 29.Tmt.Parvatham, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District. 30.Thiru.Govindan, Ex.MLA., Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District. 31.Thiru.Palanisamy, Thideer Maligai Kadai,

¶44

4/15

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶47

Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶48

32.Thiru.Tamilmani, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶49

33.Thiru.Thambi, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶50

34.Thiru.Thiruganasambandam, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶51

35.Kumaran Agro Center, Rep. by its owner, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District. … Respondents

¶52

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 20^th respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law as against the unauthorized construction made in 28^th respondent temple properties situated at S.F.Nos.171/1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 34, 35 & 42 and S.F.Nos.71/3, 7, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,

¶53

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

¶54

5/15

¶55

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶56

30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 43 situated at Tharamangalam Village, Omalur

¶57

Taluk, Salem District and thereby removing the encroachers of 29^th to 35^th respondents

¶58

and others by considering the joined inspection report dated 05.10.2015.

¶59

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy

¶60

For R1 to R13, R15 to R22, : Mr.P.Gurunathan, R24, R25 Additional Government Pleader

¶61

For R34 : Mrs.G.Sumithra

¶62

For R29, R30, R33 & R35 : Mr.V.Elangovan

¶63

For R2, R15, R26 to R28 : Mr.Yashwant Additional Government Pleader

¶64

For R14 & R23 : Mr.I.Syed Sibghadulla Standing Counsel

¶65

For R32 : Mr.V.M.Venkataramana

¶66

¶67

O R D E R

¶68

[Order of the Court was made by N.MALA,J.]

¶69

This Writ Petition is filed to direct the 20^th respondent to take appropriate action

¶70

in accordance with law as against the unauthorized construction made in 28^th respondent

¶71

temple properties situated at S.F.Nos.171/1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 34, 35 & 42 and S.F.Nos.71/3, 7, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,

¶72

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

¶73

6/15

¶74

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶75

30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 43 situated at Tharamangalam Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem District and thereby remove the encroachers viz., 29^th to 35^th respondents and others by considering the joined inspection report dated 05.10.2015.

¶76

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court with a similar prayer in W.P.No.19761 of 2018 and this Court passed the following order vide order dated 03.04.2019:

¶77

“6.Since the petitioner has, admittedly, not availed this alternative

¶78

remedy as stated in G.O.Ms.NO.540, we dispose of this writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to avail his alternative remedy before the appropriate Committees constituted under

¶79

G.O.(Ms).No.540 Revenue [LD6(2)] Department, dated 04.12.2014 and in such event, the respondents are expected to pass orders in accordance with law. No costs.”

¶80

3.The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the writ petitioner instead of approaching the appropriate committees constituted under G.O.(Ms).No.540 Revenue [LD6(2)] Department, dated 04.12.2014, once again approached this Court for

¶81

7/15

¶82

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

¶83

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶84

the very same relief which amounts to abuse of process of Court.

¶85

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that the petitioner gave a representation to the 17^th respondent on 02.12.2019, but no action was taken by the 17^th respondent. The petitioner therefore submitted a representation to the 16^th respondent on 15.11.2021 and as the 16^th respondent also failed to act on the petitioner's representation, the petitioner was constrained to file the above writ petition and therefore there was no abuse of process of Court by the petitioner.

¶86

5.We have heard both the learned counsels and we have perused the materials placed on record.

¶87

6.The Government passed G.O.(Ms).No.540 Revenue [LD6(2)] Department, dated 04.12.2014 constituting a redressal committee for eviction of encroachment. As per the G.O. the persons seeking grievance for eviction of illegal encroachment on Government lands were to file an Original Petition at the Taluk level to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar was to cause inspection at least at the level of Deputy Tahsildar, and decide whether the Government lands were encroached or not. The G.O. further stipulates that the written reply should be sent to the petitioner giving details of the

¶88

8/15

¶89

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

¶90

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶91

action taken and that the entire process is to be completed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the petition. The G.O. further provides for an Appellate Committee at Divisional level consisting of the following officials viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector of Survey. The Appellate Committee is empowered to admit the appeal petitions on eviction of encroachment either on the ground of failure on the part of Tahsildar to give reply within 60 days or if the petitioner was not satisfied with the reply given or on the action taken by the Tahsildar. A time limit of 30 days is prescribed for conveying the decision of the Appellate Committee to the petitioner.

¶92

7.In the present case as already stated above, the petitioner gave a representation to the Tahsildar and the District Collector, but they failed to take any action on the petitioner's representation.

¶93

8.In the light of the said facts, without going into the merits of the case we are of the view that it would suffice if a direction is issued to the 17^th respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.12.2019, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶94

9/15

¶95

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

¶96

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶97

9.With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no

¶98

order as to costs.

¶99

J.N.B.J., N.M.J.,

¶100

11.09.2023

¶101

Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no ah

¶102

¶103

1.The Vigilance Commissioner, Secretariat,

¶104

Chennai – 600 009.

¶105

2.The Secretary to Government, Tourism Culture & Endowments Department, Secretariat,

¶106

Chennai – 600 009.

¶107

3.The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Secretariat,

¶108

Chennai – 600 009.

¶109

4.The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat,

¶110

Chennai – 600 009.

¶111

5.The Secretary to Government, Public (Law & order C) Department, Secretariat,

¶112

10/15

¶113

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

¶114

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶115

Chennai – 600 009. 6.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶116

7.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶117

8.The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶118

9.The Commissioner of Survey & Settlements, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶119

10.The Archeological Commissioner, Egmore,

¶120

Chennai – 600 008.

¶121

11.The Director of Vigilance and Anticorruption, Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

¶122

12.The Director General of Police, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai – 600 004.

¶123

13.The Director of Town Panchayats, Santhome Road, Chennai – 600 028.

¶124

14.The Chairman,

¶125

11/15

¶126

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

¶127

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶128

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶129

15.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, 119, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶130

16.The District Collector, Salem. 17.The Taluk Executive Magistrate cum Tahsildar, Omalur, Salem District.

¶131

18.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Salem Range, Salem – 636 007.

¶132

19.The Assistant Director, District Survey Office, Salem – 636 001.

¶133

20.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Salem – 636 001.

¶134

21.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Omalur, Salem District.

¶135

22.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Salem – 636 002. 23.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., 12/15

¶136

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

¶137

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶138

Mettur, Salem District.

¶139

24.The District Registrar (West), Collectorate Campus,

¶140

Salem – 636 001.

¶141

25.The Archeological Officer, Dharmapuri.

¶142

26.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Salem - 636 001.

¶143

27.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Department, Salem – 636 001.

¶144

28.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Group Temples, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶145

29.Tmt.Parvatham, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶146

30.Thiru.Govindan, Ex.MLA., Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶147

31.Thiru.Palanisamy, Thideer Maligai Kadai, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus,

¶148

13/15

¶149

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

¶150

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶151

Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶152

32.Thiru.Tamilmani, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶153

33.Thiru.Thambi, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶154

34.Thiru.Thiruganasambandam, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶155

35.Kumaran Agro Center, Rep. by its owner, Arulmigu Elameeswarar Temple Campus, Tharamangalam, Salem District.

¶156

J.NISHA BANU, J. & N.MALA, J.

¶157

¶158

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

¶159

14/15

¶160

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶161

W.P.No.14105 of 2021

¶162

11.09.2023

¶163

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

¶164

15/15

A.Radhakrishnan v. The Vigilance Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Radhakrishnan v. The Vigilance Commissioner

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

Deljeet Chadha Vs Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority

Nlc India Ltd. Vs Union of India

Sivakami Vs The commissioner Municipal Administration

Mrs.Mumtaj, Vs The Commissioner

Anitha Raj Vs the President

M/S.S G Enterprises, Vs the Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu