This single-promise order closed a writ petition filed mandamus to stop a commercial building constructed without following Panchayat rules. The court dismissed the petition because the respondent produced building plan approval justifying the construction. No costs awarded.
The writ petition was closed with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD)No.10712 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)No.10712 of 2015
Akni Ganesan
... Petitioner
versus
... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 16.06.2015
1/6
W.P.(MD)No.10712 of 2015
and stop the illegal construction made by the 4th respondent in Survey No.20 in Sikkampatti, Mekkilarpatti Panchayat, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balaji
For R1 and R2 : Mr.P.Subba Raj, Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen For R4 : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
ORDER
The petitioner is a resident of Madurai Main Road, Usilampatti, opposite to TNSTC Depot and has approached this Court for a Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider his representation dated 16.06.2015 and to stop the construction of the 4th respondent in Survey No.20 at Sikkampatti, Mekkilarpatti Panchayat, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.
2/6
W.P.(MD)No.10712 of 2015
Hall in Survey No.20 at Sikkampatti, without following the Panchayat Rules and Highways Rules, for which, a reply letter has also been sent by the 3rd respondent/the Panchayat President that the 4th respondent has obtained permission for constructing a godown in the said survey number, but, he is constructing a Marriage Hall deviating the plan approval. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the letter of the 3rd respondent/the Panchayat President, has requested to issue a direction as against the 4th respondent.
that the 3rd respondent is not the present Panchayat President and therefore, he has to get instructions from the present Panchayat President.
produced a photograph stating that it is not a Marriage Hall and it is a commercial building. The petitioner, under the pretext that the 4th
3/6
W.P.(MD)No.10712 of 2015
respondent is attempting to construct a Marriage Hall, has submitted the above representation. The learned counsel further submits that the commercial building is only to an extent of 4484 sq. ft. and building plan approval has also been granted to the 4th respondent. He has also produced the building plan approval given by the Panchayat President.
02.01.2024
ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.
4/6
W.P.(MD)No.10712 of 2015
To
5/6
W.P.(MD)No.10712 of 2015
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
ogy
W.P.(MD)No.10712 of 2015
02.01.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider a representation regarding a marriage hall construction.
Whether to stop the construction of a commercial building allegedly deviating from plan approval.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Akni Ganesan
The District Collector, Madurai District
The Assistant Director of Panchayat
The President, Mekkilarpatti Panchayat
Chithra
B.Pugalendhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
