Disposed

C.Kirubakaran v. The District Collector

Madras HC28 Nov 2024WP(MD)/28528/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench directed the District Environmental Engineer to consider a petitioner's representation concerning an unauthorized salt godown within three months, dispensing with notice to the godown owner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits and pass orders within three months of receipt of this order.

C.Kirubakaran Vs The District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

WP(MD). No.28528 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

WP(MD). No.28528 of 2024

¶7

C.Kirubakaran ... Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 2. The Tahsildar, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶8

The Commissioner, Rajapalayam Municipality, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.

¶9

The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar. 5. Thangaraj, S/o.Rasamani, Ward 24,D.No. 1018, Malaiyedipatti, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents

¶10

1/6

¶11

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

¶12

WP(MD). No.28528 of 2024

¶13

PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate steps to remove the salt godown of the 5^th respondent functioning at Door No. 1018, Ward no. 24 West Malaiyedipatti, Rajapalayam Municipal Corporation, Virudhunagar District in the light of the proceedings of the 4th respondent and based on our representation dated 29.07.2024 within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sathishkumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar for R1 and R2 Government Pleader Mr.N.Dilipkumar for R3

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

¶17

By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶18

Since no adverse order is going to be passed against the 5^th respondent, notice to the 5^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶19

This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus to direct the 3^rd

¶20

respondent to take appropriate steps to remove the salt go-down of the 5^th

¶21

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

¶22

2/6

¶23

WP(MD). No.28528 of 2024

¶24

respondent functioning at Door No. 1018, Ward no. 24 West Malaiyedipatti, Rajapalayam Municipal Corporation, Virudhunagar District in the light of the proceedings of the 4^th respondent and based on the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.2024.

¶25

In order to remove the godown said to have been constructed by the 5^th respondent, the petitioner herein had given a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 29.07.2024. Since the said representation was not considered so far, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶26

It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this

¶27

nature is made to Statutory Authorities, there is a duty cast upon them to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, non-consideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence, this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

WP(MD). No.28528 of 2024

¶31

to the 3

¶32

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction

¶33

to the 3^rd respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 29.07.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and the respondent No.5 herein, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject property , within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the merits of the matter and that it is open to the concerned respondents to consider the same on its own merits.

¶34

With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶35

No costs.

¶36

[M.S.R.,J] [A.D.M.C.,J] 28.11.2024 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes RR

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

WP(MD). No.28528 of 2024

¶40

¶41

The District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶42

The Tahsildar, Rajapalayam Taluk, Virudhunagar District.

¶43

The District Environmental Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶44

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

¶45

5/6

¶46

WP(MD). No.28528 of 2024

¶47

M.S. RAMESH, J. AND A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶48

¶49

ORDER IN WP(MD) No.28528 of 2024

¶50

Date : 28/11/2024

¶51

6/6

¶52

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

C.Kirubakaran v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Kirubakaran 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

Chandrasekaran.T Vs The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj

Ignasimuthu .T Vs The Thasildar

V.Palanikumar Vs The District Collector

Selvaraj Vs Thirunallur Village Panchayat

The Director of Elementary Education Vs S Rajeswari

D.Chandran Vs The Management