Disposed

S.M.John Britto v. The District Collector

Madras HC9 Jan 2025WP(MD)/636/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking removal of a construction in a street road margin at Madurai on the ground that the petitioner's representation was not considered. The court directed the second respondent to consider the representation on merits and pass appropriate orders in law within three months, without expressing views on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2024 on merits and pass appropriate orders within three months; no costs.

S.M.John Britto Vs The District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.636 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.01.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

and

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.636 of 2025

¶9

and

¶10

W.M.P.(MD)No.423 of 2025

¶11

S.M.John Britto : Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The District Collector,

¶14

Madurai District.

¶15

2.The Commissioner,

¶16

Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

¶17

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Madurai West,

Madurai.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶22

W.P.(MD)No.636 of 2025

¶23

4.The Executive Engineer,

¶24

TANGEDCO,

¶25

Arasaradi, Madurai.

¶26

6.The Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Gnanaoilipuram, Madurai. : Respondents

¶27

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, to remove the construction put up in the northern side road margin of Visuvasapuram 2^nd Street, Gnanaoilipuram, Madurai – 625 016, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2024.

¶28

For Petitioner : Ms.M.Rajeswari For Respondents 1, 3 & 4 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar Government Pleader For Respondent No.2 : Mr.K.Manisekaran Standing Counsel For Respondents 5 & 6 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶29

2/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.636 of 2025

¶32

**O R D E R **************

¶33

[ Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.]

¶34

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

¶35

2. This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the construction put up in the northern side road margin of Visuvasapuram 2^nd Street, Gnanaoilipuram, Madurai – 625 016, by considering the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2024.

¶36

3. The petitioner herein had given a representation to the respondents on 23.12.2024, in this regard. Since the said representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶37

4. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of

¶38

this nature 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

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.636 of 2025

¶41

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.

¶42

5. In the light of the above observations, there shall be a

¶43

direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 23.12.2024, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, 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.

¶44

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

[M.S.R.,J.] & [A.D.M.C.,J.]

¶46

09.01.2025

¶47

Neutral Citation : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No MR

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶49

4/6

¶50

W.P.(MD)No.636 of 2025

¶51

¶52

1.The District Collector,

¶53

Madurai District.

¶54

2.The Commissioner,

¶55

Madurai Corporation,

¶56

Madurai.

¶57

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶58

Madurai West,

¶59

Madurai.

¶60

4.The Executive Engineer,

¶61

TANGEDCO,

¶62

Arasaradi, Madurai.

¶63

6.The Assistant Engineer,

TANGEDCO,

Gnanaoilipuram,

Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶68

5/6

¶69

W.P.(MD)No.636 of 2025

¶70

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

¶71

¶72

ORDER MADE IN W.P.(MD)No.636 of 2025

¶73

09.01.2025

¶74

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

S.M.John Britto v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.M.John Britto 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

T.Ramakrishnan Vs The District Collector

The General Manager Vs v.Ponnusamy

V.Duraisamy Vs The District Collector

Muthammal Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/Monitoring Committee

C.Esakkimuthu Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Chinnaiya Vs The District Collector