Dismissed¶49

R.Stanley v. The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

Madras HC18 Feb 2025WP(MD)/29490/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ of mandamus; fish stalls; fish vending; highway encroachment; Palapallam Junction; Velliyavilai Junction; Ettani Junction; Kanyakumari district; State Highway versus internal road; Marthandam-Colachel State Highway; town panchayat; traffic congestion; garbage removal; sanitation; Article 226 Constitution of India; petition dismissed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.P.(MD)No.29490 of 2024; W.M.P.(MD)No.24866 of 2024

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the photographs submitted before the Court, the roads at the junctions are not State Highways but only internal roads; the petitioner's projection that fishes are sold on the road margin of the State Highways is not true. ¶45

R.Stanley Vs The District Collector / Monitoring… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of Mandamus should issue directing the respondents to permanently stop the selling of fishes at Palapallam Junction, Velliyavilai Junction and Ettani Junction on the ground that the vending abets and encroaches the highway road sides and junctions. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The official respondents ought to control the traffic and ought to take steps to remove the garbage spitted or littered nearby the fish stall and maintain the place clean and hygienic; these observations may be considered by the respondents.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

¶45

Key takeaways

As far as selling of fishes is concerned, the official respondents / local authority is the competent authority to take appropriate action, if it is hindering the traffic.ratio¶48
The respondents had already called for a report and, based on that report, are at liberty to take any decision as per law.ratio¶48
The Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer to remove the fish stalls; the writ petition is dismissed, with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) - Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of Mandamus to permanently stop fish vending at Palapallam Junction, Velliyavilai Junction and Ettani Junction (Kanyakumari district) on the ground of encroachment on State Highway margins, traffic congestion, accidents and public health hazards - Petition DISMISSED. Perusal of photographs showed the roads to be internal roads and not State Highways, contradicting the petitioner's projection; the Court held the official respondents / local authority to be the competent authority to take appropriate action if fish vending hindered traffic, leaving them at liberty to decide as per law on the reports already called for; observed that the respondents ought to control traffic and remove garbage littered near the fish stalls and maintain hygiene. No costs; connected W.M.P.(MD)No.24866 of 2024 closed. (S.Srimathy, J.; bench: J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy, JJ.)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.29490 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.02.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.29490 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD)No.24866 of 2024

R.Stanley

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector / Monitoring Committee, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶12

2.The District Executive Engineer, Highway Department, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶13

3.The Sub-Divisional Executive Engineer, Highway Department, Kuzhithurai Division, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

4.The Divisional Engineer, Highway Department, Kanyakumari District, Nagercoil.

¶15

5.The Sub-Divisional Engineer, Highway Department, Kuzhithurai Division, Kanyakumari District.

¶16

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

¶17

1/7

¶18

W.P.(MD)No.29490 of 2024

¶19

6.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, Office of District Collectorate, Nagercoil Zone, Kanyakumari District.

¶20

7.The Block Health Superintendent, Killiyoor Taluk, Tholayavattam Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶21

8.The Block Development Officer, Killiyoor Taluk, Killiyoor Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶22

9.The Executive Officer, Karungal Town Panchayat, Karungal Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶23

10.The Executive Officer, Paalapallam Town Panchayat, Paalapallam Post, Kanyakumari District.

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to permanently stop the selling of the fishes at Palapallam Junction, Velliyavilai Junction and Ettani Junction coming under Palapallam Town Panchayat, Karungal Town Panchayat and Mullakinavilai Panchayat respectively abetting and encroaching the highway road sides and junctions in the locality based on the proceeding of 4^th respondent in Ku.No.A2/3227/2024, dated 22.10.2024, Ku.No. A2/3227/2024, dated 04.11.2024 and proceeding of the 6^th respondent in Na.Ka.No.9359/2024/pa3, dated 02.11.2024, within a time stipulated by this Court.

¶26

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

¶27

2/7

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.29490 of 2024

¶29

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sailendrababu For R1 to R8 : Mr.P.Tilak Kumar Government Pleader

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

(Order of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J. )

¶33

The present writ petition is filed for writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to permanently stop the selling of fishes at Palapallam Junction, Velliyavilai Junction and Ettani Junction coming under Palapallam Town Panchayat, Karungal Town Panchayat and Mullakinavilai Panchayat respectively abetting and encroaching the highway road sides and junctions in the locality based on the proceeding dated 22.10.2024 and 04.11.2024 of 4^th respondent and proceeding dated 02.11.2024 of 6^th respondent within a stipulated time.

¶34

The contention of the petitioner is that in Palapallam Junction nearly 15 persons, in Velliyavilai Junction nearly 20 persons and in Ettani Junction nearly 50 persons are selling fishes. The local residents to the tune of 200 to 400 persons are coming purchase fishes, thereby causing disturbance to the free flow of traffic. Further the said junction is near Marthandam to Colachel State Highways causing traffic congestion, collusion and causing accidents to the public who travel in the highway. No permission was granted by the Local Town

¶35

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

¶36

3/7

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.29490 of 2024

¶38

Panchayat to sell the fishes on the road side of the State Highways. Besides selling, the waste products are littered and spilled in the same place causing bad odour and also causing infections and epidemic diseases to the nearby residents. The persons who come for the purchase of the fish, park their vehicles on the highways thereby, causing inconvenience to other vehicles plying in the highways. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation, dated 16.10.2024.

¶39

The 4^th respondent, vide proceedings, dated 22.10.2024, has called a report from the 5^th respondent. The 6^th respondent, vide proceedings, dated 02.11.2024, has directed respondents 8 and 9 to take action on the representation. The 4^th respondent, vide letter, dated 04.11.2024, has directed the 5^th respondent to inspect the place and submit a report. Thereafter, the respondents have not taken any action. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶40

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 8 submitted that based on the representation of the petitioner, inspections were carried out and enquiry reports were submitted and the authority would take action, as per law.

¶41

On perusal of the photographs submitted before this Court, it is seen

¶42

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

¶43

4/7

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.29490 of 2024

¶45

that the roads are not State Highways but it is only internal road. The petitioner has projected as if fishes are sold on the road margin of the State Highways and the same is not true. Even the prayer it only states abetting the state highways.

¶46

However, the official respondents ought to control the traffic. Further the respondents ought to take steps to remove the garbage spitted or littered nearby the fish stall and maintain the place clean and hygienic.

¶47

As far as the selling of fishes is concerned, the official respondents /

¶48

local authority is the competent authority to take appropriate action, if it is hindering the traffic. The respondents had already called for report and based on the report the respondents are at liberty to take any decision as per law.

¶49

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer to remove the fish stalls. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the above observations may be considered by the respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶50

[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.] 18.02.2025

¶51

Index : Yes / No Tmg

¶52

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

¶53

5/7

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.29490 of 2024

¶55

¶56