Disposed

R.Umapathy v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Apr 2024WP/7528/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Farmers sought a mandamus to reconstruct a damaged check-dam on the Poigai Maduvu Channel. The State stated an estimate was prepared and administrative approval, technical sanction and budget allotment were awaited. The court directed reconstruction within six months after such sanction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to reconstruct the check-dam at Parameswaramangalam Village, Lathur Block, Chengalpet within six months after requisite sanctions; no costs.

R.Umapathy Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.7528 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05.04.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.7528 of 2021

¶7

1.R.Umapathy 2.Jayakumar.J 3.Sivakumar.A

¶8

4.Baskar.K ... Petitioners Vs.

¶9

1.State of Tamilnadu,

¶10

Represented by the Principal Secretary,

¶11

Tamilnadu Public Works Department,

¶12

Chepauk, Chennai 600 005

¶13

2.The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Organization, Public Works Department, Chepauk,

¶14

Chennai 600 005

¶15

3.The District Collector, Chengalpattu,

¶16

Collector Office, GST Road, Chengalpattu 603 001 4.The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Organization(WRO), Araniyar Division, Public Works Department, Chennai 600 005 ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India p raying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to identify, survey reconstruct and protect the check-dam at

¶18

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

¶19

1/6

¶20

W.P.No.7528 of 2021

¶21

Parameswaramangalam Village, Lathur Block, Chengalpattu and the Poigai Maduvu Water Channel.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.N.S.Tanvi

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.S.J.Mohamed Sathik, Government Advocate

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition has been filed for direction to the

¶26

respondents to reconstruct and protect the check dam at

¶27

Prameswaramangalam Village, Lathur Block, Chengalpet District.

¶28

The petitioners are farmers of Parameswaramangalam Village. They own their patta lands and are cultivating the same by various crops. Their lands are situated next to Poigai Maduvu Channel. There was a check-dam. However, it was affected due to efflux of time and even then, the respondents did not take any steps to restore the same. It is called as Poigai Maduvu Channel and it is situated around two kilometers long and ten meters in depth. On either side of the channel, there are agricultural fields. Now the check-dam has fallen and it has to be restored. Because of this, when water outflows from the said checkdam, it flows into Palar river which ultimately flows into sea. Therefore,

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.7528 of 2021

¶32

the canal takes water from the check-dam into Natham and other nearby villages of Parameswaramangalam Village and fills up of small ponds. Though the petitioners submitted several representations to the respondents, no action has been taken.

¶33

The respondents filed counter stating that the said checkdam which is only 42 meters length is found to be in damaged condition and the respondents are yet to reconstruct Anaicut based on hydrological parameters to the present situation since a new checkdam has been constructed in the river Palar at a distance of 3 kilometers from this check-dam. The estimate was prepared for restoration and they are taking steps to reconstruct the check-dam. They are awaiting sanction of estimate and allocation of funds for undertaking the works have to be made at different levels and in accordance with financial rules of the State such as sanction administrative approval, technical sanction and budget allotment for incurring the expenditure.

¶34

3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.No.7528 of 2021

¶36

In view of the above, the respondents are directed to

¶37

reconstruct the check-dam at Parameswaramangalam Village, Lathur Block, Chengalpet after sanction of estimate and allocation of funds, sanction of administrative approval, technical sanction and budget allotment for expenditures, within a period of six months thereafter.

¶38

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶39

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

05.04.2024

¶41

Neutral Citation:Yes/No Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok

¶42

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.No.7528 of 2021

¶44

¶45

1.Principal Secretary, State of Tamilnadu, Tamilnadu Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005

¶46

2.The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Organization, Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005

¶47

3.The District Collector, Chengalpattu, Collector Office, GST Road, Chengalpattu 603 001 4.The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Organization(WRO), Araniyar Division, Public Works Department, Chennai 600 005

¶48

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.No.7528 of 2021

¶50

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok

W.P.No.7528 of 2021

05.04.2024

6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

R.Umapathy v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Umapathy 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

N.Pushparajan Vs Superintendent Engineer

N.S.Karthikeyan Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

M/s.Mak Controls and Systems (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India

M.Suja Vs The Chairman

Tmt.M.S.Kamarunisssa Begam Vs State of Tamil Nadu

L.Murugesan Vs The Superintending Engineer