Disposed

Lakshmanakumar, v. the Commissioner

Madras HC26 Jul 2024WP(MD)/22162/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition alleging illegalities in constructing individual household latrines under the Clean India scheme; enquiry report was pending with the 1st respondent for instructions. The court directed the 1st respondent to take necessary action in accordance with law within twelve weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to act on the 2nd respondent's report within twelve weeks; no costs.

Lakshmanakumar, Vs the Commissioner — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.22162 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.22162 of 2018

Lakshmanakumar

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Commissioner, Municipal Administration Department, Ezhilagam Annex, 6^th Floor, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶13

2.The Regional Director, Regional Director of Municipal Corporation, Rampopular Main Road, Manakavalam Pillai Nagar, Tirunelveli-2.

¶14

3.The Commissioner, Kovilpatti Municipality, Kovilpatti Town, Tuticorin District.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass an suitable appropriate order based on the petitioner's representation dated 24.04.2017 within the stipulated time fixed by this Court.

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.22162 of 2018

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balamurugan For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.J.Parekhkumar

¶21

ORDER

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that there had been some illegalities in constructing individual household latrine under the scheme of Clean India. Therefore, he preferred a complaint to the 3^rd respondent, who in turn, sent a reply notice dated 19.06.2017, where it has been stated that enquiry officer had been appointed. Thereafter, once again, the petitioner sent a notice to the 3^rd respondent and vide reply notice dated 22.06.2018, the petitioner was informed that on 27.07.2017, the enquiry officer submitted a report, which was referred to the 2^nd respondent for further proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a notice to the 2^nd respondent for passing an appropriate order with regard to the report submitted by the enquiry officer. However, since there is no reply received from

¶24

the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.22162 of 2018

¶28

2.Though this Writ Petition is of the year 2018, till now, the respondents have not filed any counter, however, the 2^nd respondent filed a report before this Court on 10.12.2018, where it has been stated that after receipt of the enquiry report from the 3^rd respondent, the 2^nd respondent forwarded the same to the 1^st respondent vide letter dated 04.11.2017 and further instruction from the 1^st respondent is awaited.

¶29

3.In such circumstances, considering the pendency of this Writ Petition, we direct the 1^st respondent to take necessary action in accordance with law, taking note of the report submitted by the 2^nd respondent, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶30

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

¶31

[D.K.K., A.C.J.] & [R.V., J.] 26.07.2024

¶32

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶33

Yuva

¶34

Page 3 of 5

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(MD) No.22162 of 2018

¶37

¶38

1.The Commissioner, Municipal Administration Department, Ezhilagam Annex, 6^th Floor, Chepauk, Chennai-5.

¶39

2.The Regional Director, Regional Director of Municipal Corporation, Rampopular Main Road, Manakavalam Pillai Nagar, Tirunelveli-2.

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.22162 of 2018

¶43

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, A.C.J.

¶44

AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

¶45

Yuva

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.22162 of 2018

¶47

26.07.2024

¶48

Page 5 of 5

¶49

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

Lakshmanakumar, v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmanakumar, v. the Commissioner

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

Selvakumar C Vs The State Government

Rukmani Vs The District Collector

M.Saravanakumar Vs The Commmissionerate of Prohibition and Excise Department

A.M.Sundaravel Party in Person Vs the Chief Secretary

A.M.Sundaravel, Vs the Chief Secretary to

Muthuramalingam S Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee