Disposed

M.R.Viswanathan v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC3 Jul 2023WP/2619/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus to quash an industrial order and direct lease extension, the petitioners awaited the District Collector pending appeal decision. The State Government Pleader assured a four-week decision. The court disposed of the petition without further orders, leaving remedy available if the forthcoming administrative decision is adverse.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.s are closed.

M.R.Viswanathan Vs The Principal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.2619 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶8

W.P.No.2619 of 2021

¶9

M.R.Viswanathan .. Petitioner

¶10

¶11

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMC.1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶12

2.The Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶13

3.The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶14

4.M.R.Mani

¶15

5.Uthukuli Stone Crusher and Quarry Owners Association (Regn No.37/2016),

¶16

rep. by its President, No.1/219-Four Road, Morattupalayam, Uthukuli, Tiruppur-638 752. .. Respondents

¶17

[Respondent No.5 impleaded as per order dt. 7.9.2021 in WMP No.20274/2021]

¶18

___________ Page 1 of 5_

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.No.2619 of 2021

¶21

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the impugned G.O. issued by the first respondent in G.O.(D) No.9 Industries (MMC.1) Department, dated 25.01.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to extend the lease for another period of 10 months since the third respondent passed illegal order for stoppage of quarry operation.

¶22

For the Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For the Respondents : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram Advocate-General assisted by Mr.P.Muthukumar State Government Pleader and Mrs.R.Anitha Spl. Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel Senior Counsel for Ms.K.Indu Priya for respondent No.5

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶25

We have heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, learned Advocate-General, assisted by Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader along with Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.2619 of 2021

¶29

respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, learned senior counsel for the fifth respondent.

¶30

Though there are prayers made with regard to the extension of lease for another period of ten months on the ground that illegal orders are passed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the order of the second appellate authority, the petitioner has submitted his say to the show cause notice to the District Collector and the same is not yet decided by the District Collector and the District Collector be directed to decide the said appeal.

¶31

Learned State Government Pleader, on instructions, submits

¶32

that the show cause notice issued to petitioner would be decided considering the say filed within a period of four weeks.

¶33

In view of the said statement, no further orders are necessary. In case the matter is decided against the petitioner, then the petitioner may assail the same as permissible under law.

¶34

___________ Page 3 of 5_

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.2619 of 2021

¶37

The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. There

¶38

will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.2941, 2942, 2944 of 2021 and 48 of 2023 are closed.

¶39

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 03.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

¶40

¶41

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMC.1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶42

2.The Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

¶43

3.The District Collector, Tiruppur District, Tiruppur.

¶44

___________ Page 4 of 5_

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.2619 of 2021

¶47

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

bbr

W.P.No.2619 of 2021

03.07.2023

___________ Page 5 of 5_

¶52

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

M.R.Viswanathan v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R.Viswanathan v. The Principal Secretary to Government

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

K. Venkatesan Vs K. Sankari

C.Nagarajan Vs S.S.Rajhmohan

P.SENTHILKUMAR,47 Yrs, Vs B. Rajasekar

M/S.Somasimara Realters (P) Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/S.Somasimara Realters (P) Vs State of Tamilnadu

K.v.Sadasivam Vs The District Collector