Disposed

Balakrishnan.v v. The District Collector

Madras HC20 Jan 2023WP(MD)/1047/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, without expressing opinion on merits, directed the fifth respondent, Panchayat President, to consider the petitioner's representation regarding encroachment by the sixth respondent on a public road and pass orders within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the fifth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2022 and pass orders on merits within 12 weeks, after providing opportunities to all concerned including the sixth

Balakrishnan.v Vs The District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.1047 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

W.P.(MD)No.1047 of 2023

V.Balakrishnan

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶12

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Near Court Building, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶13

3.The Block Development Officer, O/o. The Block Development Officer, T.S.Ramalinga Nagar, Palayampatti, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

4.The Assistant Director, The Rural Development Agency, Collectorate Complex, Virudhunagar District,

¶17

W.P.(MD) No.1047 of 2023

¶18

5.The Panchayat President, Palayamkottai, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶19

6.N.Krishnan

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachment made by the 6^th respondent on the Madurai to Thoothukudi Road, Palayampatti Panchayat, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District comprising in Survey No. 132/1 by considering the petitioner's representation sent to the respondents 1 to 5 dated 14.12.2022.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Prabhu

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1, R2 & R4

¶24

Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, Standing Counsel for R3 & R5

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.1047 of 2023

¶28

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.]

¶29

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachment made by the 6^th respondent on the Madurai to Thoothukudi Road, Palayampatti Panchayat, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District comprising in Survey No. 132/1 by considering the petitioner's representation sent to the respondents 1 to 5 dated 14.12.2022.

¶30

2. Mr.M.Sarangan, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1, 2 and 4. Mr.P.T.Thiraviyam, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents 3 and 5. Considering the nature of the order proposed

¶31

to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to the 6^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶32

3. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶33

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.1047 of 2023

¶37

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the sixth respondent has made encroachment on the Madurai to Thoothukudi Road, Palayampatti Panchayat, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District comprising in Survey No. 132/1. In this regard, though the petitioner made a representation on 14.12.2022, seeking to remove the aforesaid encroachment, till date, no steps have been taken by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶38

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 5 submitted that necessary action will be taken for removal of encroachment, within a time frame.

¶39

6 . This Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, directs the fifth respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.12.2022 and pass orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, after providing opportunities to all the parties concerned, including the sixth respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of twelve [12] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

W.P.(MD) No.1047 of 2023

¶44

7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶45

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.]

¶46

20.01.2023

¶47

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶48

vsm

¶49

¶50

1.The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶51

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Near Court Building, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶52

3.The Block Development Officer, O/o. The Block Development Officer, T.S.Ramalinga Nagar, Palayampatti, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶53

_____________ Page 5 of 6_

¶54

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

¶55

W.P.(MD) No.1047 of 2023

¶56

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶57

vsm

¶58

4.The Assistant Director, The Rural Development Agency, Collectorate Complex, Virudhunagar District,

¶59

5.The Panchayat President, Palayamkottai, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.1047 of 2023

¶61

20.01.2023

¶62

Page 6 of 6

¶63

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

Balakrishnan.v v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishnan.v 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fathi Muthu Zahara, Vs M/s. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited

Pandiyammal Vs The Authorized Officer

Siraimeettan Vs The District Collector

Saravanan.N Vs The Authorized Officer

Suseela Devi.T Vs The Managing Director cum Chief Executive Officer

Sathishkumar.R Vs The Commissioner