Disposed

Pastor Bosco Gunaseelan v. The District Collector

Madras HC21 Apr 2025WP(MD)/11066/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing authorities to locate the entrances of a new market building at Keelapalayam, Tenkasi on the southern and eastern sides instead of the western side, citing traffic congestion. The court directed the District Collector to consider the representation after a personal hearing and pass orders within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2025 with personal hearing and pass orders within twelve weeks; connected MP closed.

Pastor Bosco Gunaseelan Vs The District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.11066 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶7

W.P(MD)No.11066 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.8240 of 2025

¶8

Pastor Bosco Gunaseelan

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

vs.

¶11

1.The District Collector,

¶12

The District Collector's Office, Tenkasi District.

¶13

2.The Commissioner,

¶14

The Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Tenkasi District.

¶15

3.The Chief Engineer, Municipal Administration Office, Chennai.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to keep the entrance of the newly built market building situated at Keelapalayam, Tenkasi on the southern side and eastern side of the market instead of the western side as represented in the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2025.

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P(MD)No.11066 of 2025

¶21

For Petitioner : M/s.Chamundi Bose For RR 1 & 3 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader For R – 2 : Mr.P.Aathimoolapandian Standing Counsel

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(Order of the Court was made by J. NISHA BANU, J.)

¶24

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

¶25

2.According to the petitioner, he is serving as the pastor of St. Michael’s Church in Tenkasi, a church that has been in existence for over 360 years. The church conducts daily prayers and special prayers on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, attracting thousands of devotees. During festival times, the number of devotees exceeds one lakh. Most attendees commute by two-wheelers and park in the surrounding area due to the absence of designated parking. On the western side of the church, a daily vegetable market (Chandhai) is held on the roadside for the convenience of local residents. Additionally, an old

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P(MD)No.11066 of 2025

¶29

market complex exists in the locality, which the municipal authorities are planning to demolish under the Kalaignar Town Development Scheme (KNMT) 2023–24. The new proposed market complex is designed to accommodate 75 shops and will feature two entrances viz., one on the south (facing the TenkasiTirunelveli High Road) and another on the west, to facilitate access for heavy vehicles such as lorries. However, the western side road, approximately 50 feet wide, is the only public pathway used by residents to access their homes, the church, a nearby temple, and a school. This road is already congested, especially during the weekly Wednesday market, which significantly restricts vehicular movement. The lack of designated parking adds to the congestion. Opening a western entrance to the new market complex will likely cause traffic jams and disturb the activities of the local institutions. In response to the petitioner’s representation dated 10.03.2025, the second respondent replied that the market complex construction is being carried out for public benefit under the KNMT scheme as per Government Order dated 08.11.2023 and Circular No.Na.Ka.No. 188484/2023 DOl/21.11.2023. It was also stated that 50% of the construction is completed and that there would be no hindrance to the public.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No.11066 of 2025

¶33

3.Despite this, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to relocate the proposed western entrance of the new market complex and instead provide entrances only on the southern and eastern sides, as requested in his representation, dated 10.03.2025.

¶34

4.The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submits that the representation of the petitioner will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed on its own merits within a time frame to be stipulated by this Court.

¶35

5.Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for by the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner either in the representation or in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, we direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10.03.2025, after affording sufficient opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties, if any and pass appropriate

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.11066 of 2025

¶39

orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

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

¶41

shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

[J.N.B.,J.] & [S.S.Y.,J.] 21.04.2025

¶43

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No ps To

¶44

1.The District Collector, The District Collector's Office, Tenkasi District.

¶45

2.The Commissioner, The Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Tenkasi District.

¶46

3.The Chief Engineer, Municipal Administration Office, Chennai.

¶47

5/6

¶48

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

¶49

W.P(MD)No.11066 of 2025

¶50

J.NISHA BANU, J. and S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶51

¶52

ORDER MADE IN W.P(MD)No.11066 of 2025

¶53

DATED : 21.04.2025

¶54

6/6

¶55

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

Pastor Bosco Gunaseelan v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pastor Bosco Gunaseelan 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

C.Pandiarajan Vs The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

The Management Vs The Presiding Officer

The Director Vs Nirmala M

J.Rajapandi Vs The Authorized Officer

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs G Sam Robust

M/s.Poornika Rice Mill Vs The Chief Judicial Magistrate