Madras High CourtWP/28047/2022disposed of

R.K.K.Veenakumari v. The District Collector

2025-07-09Honourable Mr Justice M. Sundar,Honourable Mr.Justice Hemant Chandangoudar8 pages

2025:MHC:1669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.No.27332 of 2022 R.K.K.Veenakumari W/o.G.Ganesan ... Petitioner vs.

The District Collector Coimbatore District.

The Commissioner Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Big Bazaar street Town Hall Coimbatore - 641 001.

The Thasildar Coimbatore South.

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNnURM) Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Coimbatore - 641 001.

Page Nos.1/8

The Chairman Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board No.5, Kamarajar Salai Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

The Commissioner of Police Office of Commissioner of Police Coimbatore.

The Inspector of Police D-1, Police Station Ramanathapuram Coimbatore.

... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 12.12.2021 within a time frame prescribed by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Sam Jayaraj Houston M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates (Law Firm) For Respondents :

Mr.T.K.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader for R1, R3 and R4 Mr.Najeeb Usman Khan Standing Counsel, for R2 Mr.B.Balaji for Mr.S.Karthikeyan Standing Counsel for R5 Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate for R6 and R7 ***** Page Nos.2/8

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR J.] Captioned main 'Writ Petition' {hereinafter 'WP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} is predicated on a 'representation dated 12.12.2021' {hereinafter 'said representation' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity} sent by writ petitioner to R1 [the District Collector, Coimbatore District]. A scanned reproduction of said representation is as follows:

Page Nos.3/8

2. A careful perusal of afore-referred said representation brings to light that it lacks specificity more so, it lacks required specificity for the writ petitioner to seek a mandamus qua said representation. The reason is, it merely says that the writ petitioner owns 'some property' in 'Ramanathapuram Area' near 'Rukmani Nagar' behind 'All India Radio'. In other words, it gives neither survey number nor postal address of writ petitioner's property. Be that as it may, 8th paragraph in the representation (no paragraph numbers have been assigned in the said representation but we are going by the sequence in which paragraphs have been set out) reads as follows:

'As per the High Court order issued on January 28, 2019, I am requesting you to evict the encroachers on water bodies.'

3. The above does not contain the case number and therefore, we write that it may not be appropriate to mandamus R1 to act on the said representation. As already alluded to supra, captioned main WP is predicated solely on the said representation.

4. Be that as it may, before we write the concluding part of this order, we deem it pertinent to record the submission of learned counsel for writ petitioner that a status report was requisitioned by Hon'ble predecessor Page Nos.4/8

Bench vide proceedings dated 20.10.2022 which reads as follows: 'Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 3, 4, 6 and 7 and Mr.Najeeb Usman Khan, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice on behalf of second respondent. Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of respondent No.5 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents are directed to file status report in the matter. Post the matter after four weeks.'

5. Adverting to the afore-referred proceedings, learned State Counsel submits that it is extremely difficult to make a status report on the basis of said representation owing to the writ petitioner's property details not being given clearly and case number of High Court's order not being given.

6. Be that as it may, we preserve all rights and contentions of the writ petitioner to make a fresh representation with clarity and specificity, more particularly with regard to writ petitioner's address and the High Court's order adverted to therein. If the writ petitioner chooses to send such a representation, though obvious, respondents concerned shall consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law. Page Nos.5/8

Captioned WP disposed of as closed in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, captioned Writ Miscellaneous Petition is also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S.J.,) (H.C.J.,) 09.07.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking mk Page Nos.6/8

To 1.