Disposed

L.Sriraman v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC29 Mar 2023WP/2107/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought a writ to direct the construction of an overbridge across the Vashisthar river. The Court observed that a bridge project had already been sanctioned under NABARD and Rural Roads, deeming the petitioner's grievance sufficiently redressed and disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; no separate direction to construct the specific overbridge granted as grievance considered redressed by sanctioned ongoing project.

L.Sriraman Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.2107 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 29.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶7

W.P.No.2107 of 2023

L.Sriraman

.. Petitioner

-vs-

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

The Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶13

The Director of Town Panchayats, Raja Annamalaipuram, Santhome, Chennai-600 028.

¶14

The Chief Engineer (Highways), NABARD and Rural Roads, No.76, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 025.

¶15

The Divisional Engineer (Highways), NABARD and Rural Roads, Hasthampatti, Salem District, Salem-7.

¶16

The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), NABARD and Rural Roads, Old Naatamai Kazhaga Building, Salem District, Salem-1.

¶17

Page 1 of 8

¶18

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

¶19

The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Salem Region, District Collectorate, Salem District.

¶20

W.P.No.2107 of 2023

¶21

The Tahsildar, Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk, Pethanaickenpalayam 636 109, Salem District.

¶22

..Respondents

¶23

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to construct the over bridge in the Vashisthar river (S.Nos.86/1 and 89/1) between the S.Nos.87/1 to 40/1 of Chinnamasamuthiram Village, Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk, Salem District, to the extent of 125 Meters to reach Pethanaickenpalayam Town Panchayat.

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar State Govt. Pleader * * * * *

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶27

Mr.L.Sriraman, S/o.Lakshmana Gounder, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of

¶28

Page 2 of 8

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.2107 of 2023

¶31

Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to construct a overbridge in the Vashisthar river (S.Nos.86/1 and 89/1) between the S.Nos.87/1 to 40/1 of Chinnamasamuthiram Village, Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk, Salem District, to the extent of 125 meters to reach Pethanaickenpalayam Town Panchayat.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶33

that the petitioner is a resident of Chinnasamuthiram Revenue village and there are 700 families and more than 2000 villagers are residing in the said village. There is no bus facility in the village, whereas the bus and transport facilities are available only from Pethanaickenpalayam, which is about 2 kms away from the petitioner's village. Therefore, most of the villagers who are working at Salem, Valapadi, Attur, Chinna Salem, Kallakurichi and other towns are finding it very difficult to cross the river called 'Vashisthar Nathi', which is flowing through Kurchi, Dhumbal, Belur, Yethapur,

¶34

Pethanaickenpalayam and all other places. The petitioner's villagers were going out of the village only by crossing the above Vashisthar river. Although there is a road, it is not directly connected to Pethanaickenpalayam and the same is joined in the river and the

¶35

Page 3 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.2107 of 2023

¶38

villagers have to go by walk in the river for about 125 meters. During the rainy season, the children going to school and college in addition to the villagers even the officials are facing great difficulty to reach Pethanaickenpalayam. Therefore, all the villagers, school-going children are crossing the river even during rainy season with the help of a rope, which is dangerous and there is no guarantee for their lives also. Therefore, the petitioner and the villagers have made a number of representations to the respondents dated 11.07.2022, 13.07.2022, 18.07.2022, 05.09.2022, 06.09.2022 and 07.09.2022 requesting them to construct an overbridge on Vashisthar River on S.Nos.86/1 and 89/1, that is between S.Nos.87/1 and 40/1 of Chinnasamuthiram village to an extent of 125 meters. Now that S.Nos.86/1 and 89/1 are also classified as river in the revenue records, therefore, there is no impediment for the respondents from constructing the over bridge in the river belongs to the revenue department.

¶39

The learned State Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, after taking notice, has filed a detailed status report dated 03.02.2023. Explaining the stand taken in the said report, the learned State Government Pleader submitted that at present a bridge

¶40

Page 4 of 8

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.2107 of 2023

¶43

work is taken up under NABARD and Rural Roads wing along the Vashisthar river and the site of the petitioner (Ward-1) in Highways road ODR (Chinnasamuthiram-AD Colony road). This Highway ODR has sufficient formation width of 7.50 meters for constructing a high level bridge and it connects all the four wards of Chinnasamuthiram and Kalichettiyur villages for which a technical sanction was also accorded for a sum of Rs.674.65 lakhs and an agreement also has been executed and the work is going to commence. This will benefit all the people in the four wards of Chinnasamudram Kudi Street (the petitioner's ward No.1), Chinnasamudram Pallar Street, Kallichettiyur and Palandiyur. Therefore, if the construction of the bridge as proposed is complete, the villagers of the petitioner's village may have to travel a distance of only 0.545 kms. and therefore, the petitioner may not have anymore grievance.

¶44

In view of the submission of the learned State Government

¶45

Pleader based on the status report that since a bridge work is taken up under the NABARD and Rural Roads wing along the Vashisthar river and the site of the petitioner (Ward-1), which is just 0.545 meters away from the petitioner's place where he wanted to have an Page 5 of 8

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.No.2107 of 2023

¶48

overbridge, we find that the grievance of the petitioner has been

¶49

sufficiently redressed.

¶50

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶51

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 29.03.2023

¶52

Speaking/Non-speaking order

¶53

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶54

sra

¶55

¶56

The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai-09.

¶57

The Collector, Salem District, Salem.

¶58

The Director of Town Panchayats, Raja Annamalaipuram, Santhome, Chennai-600 028.

¶59

The Chief Engineer (Highways) NABARD and Rural Roads, No.76, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 025.

¶60

Page 6 of 8

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.No.2107 of 2023

¶63

The Divisional Engineer (Highways), NABARD and Rural Roads, Hastampettai, Salem District, Salem-7.

¶64

The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Highways), NABARD and Rural Roads, Old Naatamai Kazhaga Building, Salem District, Salem-1.

¶65

The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Salem Region, District Collectorate, Salem District.

¶66

The Tahsildar, Pethanaickenpalayam Taluk, Pethanaickenpalayam 636 109, Salem District.

¶67

Page 7 of 8

¶68

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

¶69

W.P.No.2107 of 2023

¶70

T.Raja, ACJ. and D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

(sra)

W.P.No.2107 of 2023

29.03.2023

Page 8 of 8

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

L.Sriraman v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Sriraman v. State of Tamil Nadu

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

M.Ramathal Vs The Executive Engineer

R.Manikandan Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

R.Saravanan Vs The District Collector

Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Company Limited (Tangedco) Vs K.Hariprasad

Ramco Cements Limited Vs State of Tamil Nadu

V. Rathinavelu Vs State of Tamil Nadu