Disposed

C.Jeyakumar v. The District Collector

Madras HC10 Dec 2024WP(MD)/29530/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a mandamus to remove encroachments obstructing a road in Melamadurai, Madurai. The Court held that a statutory authority must consider such representations on merits and directed the second respondent to decide the representation within three months after hearing interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2024 on merits within three months.

C.Jeyakumar Vs The District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.29530 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

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

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.29530 of 2024

C.Jeyakumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶11

2.The Commissioner / Monitoring Committee, Madurai City Corporation, Madurai. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to immediately remove all encroachments obstructing S.No.211 of Ward No.5, Melamadurai, Ponmeni, Block No.32, Madurai West, Madurai District and to restore the original width of the road by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2024 within the time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Srikanth For R-1 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.29530 of 2024

¶17

For R-2 : Mr.P.Anbunidhi Standing Counsel

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to immediately remove all encroachments obstructing S.No.211 of Ward No.5, Melamadurai, Ponmeni, Block No.32, Madurai West, Madurai District and to restore the original width of the road by considering the petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2024 within the time frame stipulated by this Court.

¶21

The petitioner herein had given a representation to the second respondent on 20.09.2024 to remove the encroachments obstructing S.No.211 of Ward No.5, Melamadurai, Ponmeni, Block No.32, Madurai West, Madurai District and to restore the original width of the road. Since the said representation was not considered, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(MD).No.29530 of 2024

¶25

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

¶26

is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon him 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.

¶27

In the light of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the second respondent herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.09.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as well as all other persons, who may be interested in the subject matter, within a period of three (3) 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.

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD).No.29530 of 2024

¶31

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

¶32

shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

(M.S.R.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 10.12.2024

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

1.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶37

2.The Commissioner / Monitoring Committee, Madurai City Corporation, Madurai.

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.(MD).No.29530 of 2024

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.29530 of 2024

¶44

10.12.2024

¶45

Page 5 of 5

¶46

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

C.Jeyakumar v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Jeyakumar 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

John Jildoss .J Vs The Principal Secretary

M. Kumarasamy Health and Educational Trust Vs The Commissioner

The Assistant Settlement Oflficer North Vs Dr G Govindharaju died 1.G.Selvaraju

N.Prabhaharan Vs The Authorized Officer

C.Sivaraman Vs The Tahsildar / Monitoring Committee

The Government of Tamilnadu Vs Karthick.a