Disposed

A.Narayanan, v. the Disitrict Collector

Madras HC24 Jan 2024WP(MD)/12491/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to have his representation on a town-planning matter considered by the Panchayat authorities. Respondents agreed; the court directed them to consider it and issue orders within twelve weeks with due opportunity to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents 1 and 2 to consider representation dated 04.06.2013 and pass orders within twelve weeks.

A.Narayanan, Vs the Disitrict Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.12491 of 2013

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 24.01.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P(MD)No.12491 of 2013 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2013

A.Narayanan

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

¶11

2.The President, Reddiarpatti Panchayat, Tirunelveli District – 627 007.

¶12

3.V.Usha Rani ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 04.06.2013 and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 04.06.2013 in accordance with law.

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P(MD)No.12491 of 2013

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvam for Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram For Respondent No.1 : Mr.T.Amjadkhan Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : No appearance For Respondent No.3 : Mr.V.Balaji

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)

¶20

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 04.06.2013 and to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶21

2.The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the third respondent has already submitted an application for revised planning approval and it is pending consideration before the authority concerned.

¶22

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent, on instructions,

¶23

2/5

¶24

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

¶25

W.P(MD)No.12491 of 2013

¶26

would submit that no application for revised planning approval is pending before the second respondent and therefore, the petitioner's representation will be considered and necessary orders will be passed within a time frame.

¶27

4.In the light of the above, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 04.06.2013 and pass appropriate orders, after providing due opportunity to the parties concerned. Such an exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to say that if the third respondent approached the authority concerned for any revised plan approval or for relaxation, the same shall also be placed before the authority concerned.

¶28

5.With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶29

[D.K.K.,J.] [R.V.,J.] 24.01.2024

¶30

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ps

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.P(MD)No.12491 of 2013

¶34

¶35

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, Tirunelveli District.

¶36

2.The President, Reddiarpatti Panchayat, Tirunelveli District – 627 007.

¶37

4/5

¶38

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

¶39

W.P(MD)No.12491 of 2013

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.12491 of 2013

¶43

DATED : 24.01.2024

¶44

5/5

¶45

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

A.Narayanan, v. the Disitrict Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Narayanan, v. the Disitrict 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

Kavitha Vs The Superintendent of Police

Fathima Parimala Vs The Superintendent of Police

M.Kaluvathevar, Vs Member Secretary

M/S. Thillai Agencies, Rep. - Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep. -

S.Paulraj Vs the Principal District Judge

B.Stalin, S/O. S.Baskaran, Vs the Chief Secretary