Madras High CourtWP/23266/2011dismissed

Kumari, v. The Secretary To Government,

2022-04-04Honourable Mr Justice M. Govindaraj3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :04.04.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ W.P.No.23266 of 2011 & M.P.No.1 of 2011 Kumari

...Petitioner

vs.

1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Industries, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2. The District Revenue Officer, Collectorate Office, Thiruvallur District.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.

4. The Special Tahsildar(LA), Aromatoic Complex(MRL), Saidapet, Chennai-600015

5. The Chairman, Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd., No.552, Anna Salai, Tenampet, Chennai-18.

...Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.08.2011.

For Petitioner : Ms.R.T.Sundari For Respondents: Mr.M.Rajendran, AGP for RR1 to 4 : Mr.M.Gowtham Balaji for M/s.DUA Associates for R5

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents herein to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.08.2011. 2.It is seen that the fifth respondent provided rehabilitation to the land losers whose lands were acquired for its project. The respondents 1 to 4 enumerated the loss of land losers between 2004-2006. The enumerated persons were provided with certain rehabilitation scheme adopted by the fifth respondent and in this regard, the petitioner made a representation on 18.08.2011, however, after completion of rehabilitation scheme in the year 2006 i.e., after elapsing 5 years from the date of publication of the final list.

The fourth respondent has considered the said application, but rejected the same vide his reply dated 03.02.2012, for nonfulfillment of norms. It was also stated that the petitioner has not responded during the time of enumeration in the year 2004 since she was not a resident of Amunllavoyil Village at that time. Therefore, the petitioner's request hit by laches. 3.This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the entire materials placed on record.

4.The representation made by the petitioner dated 18.08.2011 has already been rejected by the fourth respondent on 03.02.2012. Hence, the Writ Petition has become infructuous. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the rejection order, if she so desires.

5.This Writ Petition is dismissed, with a liberty as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar dn To