Disposed

K.Vinoth v. the District Collector

Madras HC22 Aug 2024WP/24162/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction for relevant authorities to act on a representation regarding illegal fishing activities by the fourth respondent in an irrigation lake. The Court issued directions to the second respondent to consider the representation on merits within four weeks after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and others.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.07.2024 on merits and pass appropriate orders within four weeks after affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

K.Vinoth Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.24162 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.08.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

W.P.No.24162 of 2024

K.Vinoth

...Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector,

¶11

Chengalpattu,

¶12

Chengalpattu District – 603 301.

¶13

The Assistant Engineer,

¶14

Water Resources Department,

¶15

Cheyyur, Pavunjur,

¶16

Chengalpattu District – 603 312.

¶17

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kiliyaru Vadinila Ubakottam, Maduranthagam, Chengalpattu District – 603 304.

¶18

Mohandas ...Respondents

¶19

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.07.2024 and consequently direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to take necessary legal action against the 4^th respondent based on his representation.

¶20

Page No.1 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.No.24162 of 2024

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.LSM.Hasan Fisal, AGP, for R1 to R3 : Notice Dispensed With, for R4

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This Writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.07.2024 and to consequently take necessary legal action against the 4^th respondent.

¶26

2. In view of the consent expressed by the learned counsel on either

¶27

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

¶28

Since no adverse order is being passed against the 4 th respondent, notice to the 4 th respondent is dispensed with.

¶29

The case of the petitioner is that the Pudupattu Irrigation Lake situated in Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District comes under the control of Water Resources Department of Government of Tamil Nadu and it is a significant source of irrigation for the surrounding agricultural lands and from Page No.2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.24162 of 2024

¶32

the said lake, more than 100 farmers are getting benefited. While so, the 4^th respondent, for the purpose of carrying out fishing, without getting proper permission from the concerned authorities, is pumping out the water from the said lake by using tractors and motor pumps. Hence, the petitioner made a representation before the 2^nd respondent, who in turn visited the place of occurrence and warned the 4^th respondent, despite which, the 4^th respondent is continuously carrying out fishing, which cannot be acceded to. Thereby, the petitioner made a representation dated 08.07.2024 before the respondents 1 & 2. Since the official respondents have not passed any orders on the said representation, the petitioner has come us with the present writ petition.

¶33

Though very many grounds have been raised, the learned counsel for

¶34

the petitioner submitted that, it would suffice, if this Court issues direction to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.07.2024 and to consequently take necessary legal action against the 4^th respondent for the illegal fishing activities being carried out by him in the above said lake.

¶35

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the

¶36

respondents 1 to 3 has no objection for the said order being passed by this Page No.3 of 6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P.No.24162 of 2024

¶39

Court and he fairly submitted that appropriate orders will be passed on the

¶40

petitioner's representation within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶41

In view of the limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.07.2024 on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent and aggrieved persons, if any.

¶42

With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶43

costs.

¶44

22.08.2024

¶45

skt NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No

¶46

To:

¶47

Page No.4 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P.No.24162 of 2024

¶50

The District Collector, Chengalpattu,

¶51

Chengalpattu District – 603 301.

¶52

The Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, Cheyyur, Pavunjur, Chengalpattu District – 603 312.

¶53

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kiliyaru Vadinila Ubakottam,

¶54

Maduranthagam, Chengalpattu District – 603 304.

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

skt

Page No.5 of 6

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

W.P.No.24162 of 2024

W.P.No.24162 of 2024

22.08.2024

Page No.6 of 6

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

K.Vinoth v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vinoth 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

M.Suresh Vs The Branch Manager

Tmt.T.Muthulakshmi, Vs the Commissioner

Karthik Sabanayagam Vs The Union of India

M/s. Kalaimahal Educational Trust Vs Union of India

Santhosh.v Vs Union of India

Charoen Pokphand (India) Vs The Chairman and Managing