Jayaraman v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY JAYARAMAN ... Petitioner Vs 1.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, O/O. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.
2.
THE TAHSILDAR, THANDRAAMPATTU TALUK, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.
3.
THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, THANDRAAMPATTU, TIRUVANNAMALALI DISTRICT.
... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to relocate the proposed public facility for storing and drying raw rice grains to an alternate area based on the representation given to the respondents dated 18.03.2025. For Petitioner : Ms.B.Keerthana For R1 to R3 : Dr.S.Suriya Additional Government Pleader 1/5
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus directing the respondents to relocate the proposed public facility for storing and drying raw rice grains to an alternate area, based on the representations given to the respondents dated 18.03.2025.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 77 year old person and considering his ailments relating to respiratory issues and the peace that is needed for him, he has constructed his home in a secluded place and has been living there since 1981. Suddenly, very near to his home, a Paddy Drying Facility (fsk;) is now located. The same would result in health issues for him.
3. When the matter came up for admission, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, by placing the written instructions, submitted that the fsk; has already been constructed and is being put to use by the farmers.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel 2/5
on either side.
5. Though the fsk;, if located near the petitioner's house, may cause some inconvenience to the petitioner, from the photograph furnished along with the writ petition, it can be seen that it is not as if the petitioner would be put to grave suffocation, etc. This apart, it is common knowledge that nowadays, in the villages, the majority of the paddy is being harvested and goes straight to the agricultural markets. As a matter of fact, from the location, it cannot be stated that the petitioner's right to life itself would be affected. Therefore, when the slight inconvenience is caused to the petitioner is pitted against public interest, public interest shall prevail and the petitioner's grievances cannot be countenanced.
6. In view thereof, finding no merits, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
24.04.2025 nsl To 1.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, O/O. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 3/5
TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.
2.
THE TAHSILDAR, THANDRAAMPATTU TALUK, TIRUVANNAMALAI DISTRICT.
3.
THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, THANDRAAMPATTU, TIRUVANNAMALALI DISTRICT.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl 4/5
24.04.2025 5/5