Dismissed

Subbaiah .K v. The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

Madras HC27 Feb 2024WP(MD)/4436/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed as a PIL seeking direction to authorities not to grant plan approval to the fifth respondent. The Court held that since a Single Judge had already decided the matter and the order was in force, entertaining the present PIL was not appropriate. The petition was dismissed without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Subbaiah .K Vs The District Collector / Monitoring… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.4436 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.4436 of 2024

K.Subbaiah

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector / Monitoring Committee Collectorate Thoothukudi District Korampallam Thoothukudi

¶11

2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat O/o.AD Panchayat Collectorate Kokirakulam, Tirunelveli Tirunelveli District

¶12

3.The Tahsildar Taluk Office Tiruchendur Thoothukudi District

¶13

_____________ Page 1 of 6_

¶14

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

¶15

W.P.(MD) No.4436 of 2024

¶16

4.The Executive Officer Panchayat Board Udangudi, Thoothukudi District

¶17

5.L.Jeganath

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.01.2024 and further to direct the respondents 2 and 4 not to grant any plan approval to the fifth respondent without conducting a proper enquiry.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilakkumar Government Pleader for R1 to R4 Mr.G.Mohan Kumar for R5

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

We have heard Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.Thilakkumar, learned Government Pleader, for the respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.G.Mohan Kumar, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD) No.4436 of 2024

¶27

2. The present writ petition is filed in the nature of a public interest litigation. Request is made to consider the representation dated 28.01.2024

¶28

and not to grant construction permission or any plan approval to the fifth respondent, without conducting a proper enquiry.

¶29

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the fifth respondent that the fifth respondent was granted approval of a plan. Thereafter, a stop work notice was issued. The fifth respondent challenged the same by way of a writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

¶30

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not a party in the said writ petition. He had appeared for the present petitioner in the said matter and sought time. But, his request was not accepted and the order came to be passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶31

5. Be that as it may, there cannot be two contrary orders in force with regard to the same subject matter. The learned Single Judge has already dealt with the matter and passed the orders. If the party feels that the order is passed without the relevant facts placed on record, the aggrieved party has a

¶32

_____________ Page 3 of 6_

¶33

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

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.4436 of 2024

¶35

remedy available in respect of the said order. However, when the said order is

¶36

in force, entertaining a public interest litigation would not be appropriate.

¶37

6. In the light of that, the present writ petition is dismissed. No

¶38

costs.

¶39

[S.V.G., C.J.] [G.I., J.]

¶40

27.02.2024

¶41

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

¶42

krk

¶43

To: 1.The District Collector / Monitoring Committee, Collectorate, Thoothukudi District, Korampallam, Thoothukudi.

¶44

2.The Assistant Director of Panchayat, O/o.AD Panchayat, Collectorate, Kokirakulam, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶45

_____________ Page 4 of 6_

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.4436 of 2024

¶48

3.The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Tiruchendur, Thoothukudi District.

¶49

4.The Executive Officer, Panchayat Board, Udangudi, Thoothukudi District.

¶50

Page 5 of 6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.4436 of 2024

¶53

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE and G.ILANGOVAN , J.

¶54

krk

¶55

W.P.(MD) No.4436 of 2024

¶56

27.02.2024

¶57

Page 6 of 6

¶58

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

Subbaiah .K v. The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Subbaiah .K v. The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ezhumalai Vs The District Collector

Senthilkumar v Vs The Secretary to Government

Thangaraj, Vs the District Collector

Kalanthar Ashik Ahamed I Vs The District Collector

V.Jegan Vs the Principal Secretary

Palpandi Vs The District Collector