Disposed¶36

The Secretary v. The Executive Engineer (P.W.D)

Madras HC3 Jul 2025WP(MD)/503/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; temporary bridge over channel; S.No. 350; school playground safety; Rama Palanivelsamy High School, Theni; PWD Manjalaru Water Resources Division; Meenakshiyamman Kanmoi Neerinai Payanpaduthuvor Sangam impleaded; demolition of unauthorised bridge; permission for permanent structure; Article 226; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; disposed with time-bound directions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to apply within four weeks for a permanent structure; official respondents to consider the request in accordance with law within six weeks; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶36

The Secretary Vs The Executive Engineer (P.W.D) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.503 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

W.P(MD)No.503 of 20254 and W.M.P(MD)No.531 of 2024

¶7

The Secretary, Rama Palanivelsamy High School, Bodi – Meenatchipuram, Theni District. ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Executive Engineer (P.W.D), Manjalaru Water Resources Division, Periyakulam, Theni District.

¶10

The Assistant Executive Engineer (P.W.D), Manjalaru Water Resources Division, Theni District, Theni.

¶11

The Assistant Engineer (P.W.D), Manjalaru Water Resources Division, Bodinaickannur, Theni District.

¶12

The Meenakshiyamman Kanmoi Neerinai Payanpaduthuvor Sangam, represented by its President, G.Jayaram, S/o.GOvindharam, B.Ammapatti, Bodinayakanoor, Theni District. ... Respondents (R-4 is impleaded vide court order dated 03.07.2025 in WMP(MD)No.2471 of 2024 in WP(MD)NO.503 of 2024)

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(MD)No.503 of 2024

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents by permitting the petitioner, to form a temporary bridge, across the channel in S.No. 350, running parallel to the road, running east - west, to reach S.No.351/1A, 1B and 1C lands, which is used as play ground and common place for the school students of the petitioner's school.

¶17

For Petitioner : M/S.Eugene.F.X For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Aditional Government Pleader For R-4 : Mr.S.Rajasekar

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to construct a temporary bridge across the channel in S.No. 350, running parallel to the road, running east - west, to reach S.No.351/1A, 1B and 1C lands, which is used as play ground and common place for the school students of the petitioner's school, by passing an order.

¶20

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the

¶21

channel is running across the road, it is also not safety to leave the running water

¶22

2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P(MD)No.503 of 2024

¶25

while the school children are playing in the area. Therefore, the petitioner seeks permission to construct a temporary bridge across the channel.

¶26

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents

¶27

submitted that permission for a temporary bridge cannot be granted, especially considering that it may not be safe for school children

¶28

In the meantime, Meenakshiyamman Kanmoi Neerinai Payanpaduthuvor Sangam, filed an impleading petition and the same is allowed.

¶29

The contention of the impleading fourth respondent is that the petitioner

¶30

School has already constructed a permanent bridge without obtaining proper permission. The said bridge is adjacent to the Meenakshi Amman Kanmai. If the water is filled in the said Kanmai, it would enter the play ground which would affect the safety and security of the children.

¶31

The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent 1 to 3 further submitted that the previously constructed bridge was demolished only for the sole reason that the petitioner School did not get prior permission from the President. Now, the petitioner school is ready to seek permission for putting up a permanent construction.

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

W.P(MD)No.503 of 2024

¶35

In view of the above, this Court is directing the petitioner to submit an application within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the official respondents shall consider the petitioner's request in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks therefrom. It is made clear that the petitioner School is permitted to put a permanent structure, and not a temporary structure. If such construction is permissible under law, the authorities may grant the necessary approval.

¶36

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

¶37

shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

03.07.2025

¶39

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

¶40

jbr

¶41

4/6